Friday, January 07, 2011

Charging it up

No pictures as of yet, as I had to charge my camera. (One of these days I will break down and buy a newer, higher resolution digital camera. It's just that I get so overwhelmed by the options and want to buy the "best" one for me, not the "sort of best" one. I suppose I need to go to a camera store or something where people actually know the different types, and explain that I do a lot of close-ups of things, that I'd like to (for example) be able to photograph plants or insects on plants and get the camera to focus well on that. And be able to take photographs that don't get ugly and pixelated when I enlarge them to go on a poster. And, if possible, have that in a camera with (a) good storage capacity, so I'm not having to remember to take several memory cards out in the field and (b) is small enough to be easy to carry.)

I finished a couple of toys (including the Cheese-kun, which I wound up taking along with me) on break, and two pairs of socks. And most of Thermal, though even with my pushing really hard the last two days of break, I didn't manage to quite finish the second sleeve. (It is up to the sleeve-cap decreases though, so it will be done soon).

Another thing I'm thinking of photographing is my new glasses. Yeah, I got a new pair of glasses. The pair I had been wearing were 10 years old (or very close to it). My prescription had changed only minimally during that time, and since I didn't have "coverage" to pay for new glasses, I figured it was fine to keep the old ones.

This go-round, I decided to get new glasses. Mainly because the plastic covering the earpieces on the old ones had gotten brittle and was breaking off, and the rough parts would catch in my hair.

And also, my prescription had changed a little. Not greatly, and my eye doctor thinks I'm still five years out from needing bifocals. (I go to the same eye doctor I went to when I lived up in Illinois. I figure, as long as I'm paying for it, there's no harm in having checkups done at a familiar doctor, even if he's out of state).

I was greatly relieved at the end of the exam. For one thing, there's no sign of any disease. I worry about my eyes; my grandmother (in particular) had lots of problems (including macular degeneration, which I am probably too young to develop, but still). The eye doctor has a fairly new piece of equipment that allows for a digital scan to be taken of the retina (it replaces, apparently, the old exam where they'd dilate your eyes and then the doctor examined the retinas).

It's kind of freaky and cool, because since it's a scan, the doctor can show you what the insides of your eyes look like. He pointed out where the macula showed up on the scan and told me it looked "textbook perfect healthy" (I think he likes to reassure me, knowing my concerns). He also noted that the retinas were very healthy, no sign of tears (there is a greater risk of those, and retinal detachment, in people who are nearsighted like I am) and no sign of untreated high blood pressure or diabetes (apparently both of those can show up in retinal damage and he's actually referred people to internists for diabetes testing after looking at their eyes)

He also examined my corneas with the slit lamp, and he kind of chuckled and said, "If I didn't know your true age, I'd guess these were the corneas of someone in their 20s." Apparently my insistence on wearing sunglasses and a big hat whenever I'm outdoors is paying off. (My forcing down lots of spinach and other "eye friendly" foods may also help). No signs of cataracts or even "cloudiness," which he said was actually kind of expected of someone in their early 40s.

They also did the glaucoma test, and that came back with good results. So my eyes are healthy, which is a relief. (Though, truth be told? If I had to choose between keeping my sight and keeping my hearing, I'd choose hearing. I think for me, I'd find going deaf more isolating than going blind.)

So then I went to the Wall O Frames and started looking. Squared off eyeglass rims are very popular right now, but I decided they really would not be a good look for my face. I finally found a pair that were more oval (but still more squarish than my old ones). I tried several pairs, actually. The one I finally chose (isn't this always the way?) was the most expensive of all of them but it was enough better - in terms of color and shape - than the others to make me decide to buy them).

So I have new glasses. The frames are, I can tell, slightly smaller than my old ones, and the bows have "decoration" (it looks like small pink flower petals) on them - it took some getting used to, both the smaller frames and the wider bows there in my field of vision. (But I did adapt to it, after a couple of days.)

I kept the old pair for a spare; for someone as dependent on eyeglasses as I am breaking a pair would be a bad deal. (I can't drive without glasses; I can't see well enough.)

***

I've decided to take today "off" rather than going in to school. (I did check my e-mails though. Startlingly large number for the couple of days the university was technically open.) I'm going to make the Target run my headache kept me from yesterday, and pick up the few items I missed getting at the grocery.


(Based on the content of some of the e-mails, I'm not entirely ready to go back to campus just yet.)

(And get some steel wool for the "old country" way of excluding mice - I found a hole where they might be getting in - you stuff steel wool in the hole and they can't chew through it and they don't like getting near it)

3 comments:

CGHill said...

"How big a poster?" will pretty much answer all the other questions with a bit of math. If you want, say, 22 x 28 at 300 dpi, you're looking at 6600 x 8400 = 53 megapixels*, which isn't happening unless you have enough of a budget to accommodate the Hubble Space Telescope. On the other hand, 11 x 14 takes up one-quarter the space - as would 150 dpi - and a 12-MP camera would do the job nicely.


* Actually 55,400,000 pixels. And to be fair, Hasselblad's 50-MP camera costs only about $40,000.

Lydia said...

The point and shoot that I have is the generation before the Canon PowerShot SD1300IS, which seems to be a basic, easy to find camera. The macro mode is good, and, while I haven't printed a poster, I cropped down shots and then printed them at 8.5x11 with no problems.

Lynn said...

I love my Sony Cybershot. (5 megapixel) It's small and light and has lots of different options. I carry it in my purse all the time and I don't carry a big purse.

I had this picture printed at 16"X20" and it's absolutely perfect. You can count every hair. It does macro pretty good too - it focuses as close as 5 inches - but there are times I wish I could get just a little bit closer.

I've had it for several years. I'm sure there's something better out there now.