Why don't opticians use digital cameras?
Mar. 24th, 2004 04:39 pmSerious question. Well, ok, semi-serious question.
The thing I always find slightly frustrating about buying a new pair of glasses is that I'll be stuck with them for a couple of years, but I can never quite see how I'll look in the new frames until it's too late - there's usually some sort of magnifying mirror available at the opticians, but that never gives me a very clear picture. And while I'm sure the dispensing optician's advice is well intended, I don't always agree with their sense of style...
So, digital cameras. Surely it's the perfect solution? Especially when you consider that most opticians now have a computer or two around.
Try on the new frames. Get a photo taken. Change back to your normal glasses, see how you look in the photo (uploaded to the PC, if possible, or just on the camera screen). Surely that'd work? Or am I missing something?
...although obviously it would have been much more sensible if I'd thought of this at 8:30 this morning and left the house with my camera in my pocket, so that I could have done this before I bought a new pair today. D'oh.
Edit: Ok, so I've just missed all the opticians that do have this facility... *sigh* :)
The thing I always find slightly frustrating about buying a new pair of glasses is that I'll be stuck with them for a couple of years, but I can never quite see how I'll look in the new frames until it's too late - there's usually some sort of magnifying mirror available at the opticians, but that never gives me a very clear picture. And while I'm sure the dispensing optician's advice is well intended, I don't always agree with their sense of style...
So, digital cameras. Surely it's the perfect solution? Especially when you consider that most opticians now have a computer or two around.
Try on the new frames. Get a photo taken. Change back to your normal glasses, see how you look in the photo (uploaded to the PC, if possible, or just on the camera screen). Surely that'd work? Or am I missing something?
...although obviously it would have been much more sensible if I'd thought of this at 8:30 this morning and left the house with my camera in my pocket, so that I could have done this before I bought a new pair today. D'oh.
Edit: Ok, so I've just missed all the opticians that do have this facility... *sigh* :)
no subject
Date: 2004-03-24 08:46 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-03-24 08:47 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-03-24 08:47 am (UTC)Ah well.
no subject
Date: 2004-03-24 08:49 am (UTC)This is why I stick to the same design of frames that I've had for years (even if it does mean searching through a ridiculous number of shops until I find the matching pair)
no subject
Date: 2004-03-24 08:49 am (UTC)Still, I'm quite happy with the way it went - the frames looked perfectly good when I wasn't wearing them, and it all worked out remarkably cheap, considering my prescription.
no subject
Date: 2004-03-24 08:50 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-03-24 08:50 am (UTC)I've had the same design for about six years too. Except that they discontinued it in 2001... gits. :(
no subject
Date: 2004-03-24 08:56 am (UTC)(I'll dig the URL for that program out later tonight)
Not quite, but
Date: 2004-03-24 08:56 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-03-24 09:03 am (UTC)I recently purchased a new cheap "spare" pair (when you're as blind as me, you can't have too much backup) without his assistance, and they actually look pretty good.
no subject
Date: 2004-03-24 09:06 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-03-24 09:09 am (UTC)Ah well, I got the whole thing for £118 in the end (£30 for the frames, £88 for the Zeiss lenses) so I'm not too unhappy with the final result.
Re: Not quite, but
Date: 2004-03-24 09:22 am (UTC)http://www.ukhairdressers.com/hair_move/index.asp
no subject
Date: 2004-03-24 11:33 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-03-24 12:17 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-03-25 04:35 am (UTC)