 Poster: A snowHead
|
slowphil, I'd strongly recommend that you try on any pair you might be interested in buying. The size and shape of goggles varies, and you might find something which comes highly recommended might not work with the size and shape of your face. If you wear a helmet it's also a good idea to see if the goggles line up with with whatever helmet you have.
I don't think lens type or goggle type makes a huge difference. I have several pairs of goggles in various lens colours and I don't really notice a significant difference in the "seeing" quality between different types. I prefer an orange or yellow tint for bad weather/flat light and something a bit darker for sunny days (as my eyes seem quite sensitive to bright light and will occasional water if the lens isn't dark enough). But beyond that general preference I think fit and comfort is more important.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
rob@rar, definitely agree about trying them on, especially with a helmet to make sure they fit properly. slowphil could order them online and send them back if they're not right.
I agree about the comfort too, as I said earlier, my face is quite small so I have to choose a female specific model, the universal ones are just too big for me and come down too far on my face. Comfort and fit are important however, I wouldn't recommend to anyone on here that they wear a flat light lens or one that is designed for low or general light conditions in bright sunny conditions, because (as I found out during the last year) the symptoms you describe of occasional watering of your eyes is a common symptom of UV damage that has already occurred (called excessive lacrimation).
Photokeratitis (one of the many eye problems caused by UV light and is the ocular equivalent of sunburn) can be caused in as little as a 1 hour exposure to UV reflected off snow  and longer in UV reflected from light sand. As such I know that next season I won't be making do with my one pair of goggles because I can't be bothered to get the other ones out of my rucksack, I'll be getting them on.
Anyway, just thought I'd mention that. What I'm getting at here is not from the 'seeing' angle re flat light etc but from the protection angle, damage to eyes from excessive UV can be devastating, I've seen the pics
Last edited by Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person on Sun 11-07-10 19:28; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
VolklAttivaS5, is the amount of UV protection related to the colour of the lens? I thought it wasn't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
rob@rar, you know what, I was just thinking about that before I saw your post, although it was the mention of your watery eyes that prompted me to mention about the UV protection, as I'd also found previously that my eyes watered a bit with my flat light goggles on if the sun came out and if I kept them on too long without swapping them. I think the UV protection is the same or should be the same anyway regardless of the lens type so you're quite right about that. However, with that said, the watering of the eyes that you and I have experienced, isn't a good sign and definitely is a symptom of UV damage as far as I've been made aware.........so far anyway......therefore it makes you wonder whether the lower transmission lenses do actually have lower UV protection otherwise, why would our eyes water or feel uncomfortable? Unless there is another reason that I don't know about yet (maybe it will come out sometime in the next 2 years  ).
Also as DaveC commented earlier on in the thread
| Quote: |
low light lens is the best I've used and doesn't burn your eyeballs out at the first sign of sun
|
so it seems a common theme doesn't it......I will have a look into this and ask someone else if I can why the excessive lacrimation occurs if it's not down to the UV and let you know what the outcome of that is, will be interesting for me to find out if it is indeed true that all lenses offer the same UV. Seems strange though as we all know that tears or watery eyes are a sign to say something is not right.......
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
VolklAttivaS5, my eyes can water immediately I move from low light to very bright light, so I don't think it is a sign of UV damage. I just think my eyes water easily; it also happens if I ski quickly (no jokes about being a crybaby please  ).
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| VolklAttivaS5 wrote: |
| There's got to be a reason why my eyes hate the flat light goggles in bright light |
Photosensitivity, the same as me?
| Quote: |
| The skiing fast thing is only the wind drying your eyes out a bit too quickly though isn't it, are you saying that this happens with your goggles on? |
No, it's fine with goggles, but sunglasses can be a bit of a problem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
rob@rar, yes that happens to me with sunglasses on and skiing fast too, a bit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
VolklAttivaS5, 
slowphil, I've always been happy with Dragon goggles, as have other members of my family - I think mine are the Pink Ionized lenses, which are great in flat light, but I do need to change goggles when it gets really bright.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
slowphil, see, I did say someone with Dragons would be along soon! Glad you have found some you like.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
slowphil, they are a good buy from that site @ 50% discount, my daughter is now tempted with a new pair 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
IncogSkiSno, they're deer to start with aren't they-more expensive that my Smiths were, but the discounted price is excellent. They have some good designs too. Do they have the complete strap or a clip (like we've discussed before)?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
UV rays != brightness, surely? You can get a clear lens with 100% uv protection, it's just a part of the spectrum of light. Pretty sure at altitude you can damage your eyes even when it's cloudy by not having any protection on.
Low light lenses aim for higher contrast, by filtering blue light out and not diminishing brightness, so they're never going to be great in sunlight. Middle ish compromise lenses will be alright all over but not great in either, and stuff like fire iridium will do the opposite of low light lenses - reduce brightness and as a byproduct reduce contrast.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
VolklAttivaS5, complete strap.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
DaveC,
| Quote: |
Pretty sure at altitude you can damage your eyes even when it's cloudy by not having any protection on.
|
Yes that is right, it can happen at sea level too without protection on but any snow cover at altitude means the UV light/radiation can be reflected too from the snow so that there is then 'extra' if you like.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| IncogSkiSno wrote: |
| VolklAttivaS5, complete strap. |
Oh, that's even better then. I haven't had any trouble with the clip on mine this time so will bear in mind Dragon for my future pair.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
Wow, the witter factor in this thread is something else again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
Hurtle, a medley of semi-related topics covered
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
VolklAttivaS5, indeed. At length.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
Hurtle, absolutely!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
VolklAttivaS5, have you run out of homework?! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hurtle I can't wait to go back!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
VolklAttivaS5, you are the busiest little bee I know!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That's an interesting bit above about the UV protection and burning the eyes. I assumed that most goggles would be good UVA and UVB protection regardless of the tint - after all many fashion sunglasses claim 100% UVA and UVB protection and they are often not as fully tinted as even low light ski goggles to look at them. I have purchased those Scott Ransom goggles with a Chrome Amplifier lens 1/2 price in the sale earlier on this year, and although Scott do more purpose made low light goggles, I think they are about their second best low light lens. I was kind of hoping that they would be OK if I put them on first thing on a low light morning and then the sun came out. This is because once I have put my contacts in its a lot of faffing round to take them out and do prescription sunnies, and then I'd have to carry a spare set to put them in again if the light got bad again, or carry a spare set of ordinary sunglasses with me. Was it decided if rob@rar, was just photosensitive or if some goggles don't have the same degree of UV protection, or that eye burn isn't caused solely by UV?
N.B. I've just checked the Ransom goggles claim "100% UVA/ UVB/ UVC Radiation Protection" I hope they will be OK.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
Contacts themselves provide UV protection don't they?
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
| Megamum wrote: |
| TWas it decided if rob@rar, was just photosensitive |
I'm just a sensitive guy all round
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
fatbob, I honestly don't know - I hadn't heard that, but I could imagine that any physical layer on or above the eye attenuates any UV a bit.
rob@rar, Awww.....we all know that you are our cuddly sensitive instructor don't worry.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
Megamum, I have heard back now from the others I asked who would definitely know for sure about all of the above, and will post tomorrow sometime, including the bit about contact lenses too since that's come up, as I already know the answer to that one.
Will come back tomorrow though as only just logged on quickly tonight.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
Back now. With answers. If anyone still cares. Probably not but I didn't want to not bother coming back when I said I would
http://www.agingeye.net/visionbasics/uvlightandvision.php
This is the third time now I've tried to post this! I lost it twice due to my internet connection being temperamental, then in the meantime I found the above article from the University of Illinois which sums a lot of it up nicely without using jargon, and including the question raised on contact lenses earlier. i.e. yes, some do have UV protection but they are inadequate on their own due to the reasons stated in the article.
Although I'd forgotten about lenses having UV protection (if they have it) regardless of the tint or colour in my previous post, I was correct to recommend that people don't 'make do' with one pair of low/flat light goggles and use them for all conditions including bright light (phew, or I'd have felt a right ninny ) as they aren't meant for that and they should wear the appropriate low transmission lens for bright/sunny conditions, or, wear a universal lens which does a bit of everything. To be fair, I think that if someone is going to 'make do' with one pair of sunglasses or goggles though, they will be the 'bright sun' variety (assuming they don't own a universal pair) where they tend to 'make do' with not being able to see very well in flat light or low light, rather than it being the other way around, so that's fine. This seems to be the most common goggle related thread you see on Snowheads, with people complaining they can't see well in flat light and could someone recommend a flat light lens for them. Therefore I wouldn't have thought there would be many people who would be using a high transmission lens as their main lens anyway, unless they are putting up with any eye discomfort in bright light, which is obviously a concern if they are.
I asked a few optometrists as I said about the excessive lacrimation (and therefore why the low/flat light lenses shouldn't be used for everything) and the general concensus was that light from the sun has a powerful thermal effect as well as containing UV. This is quite obvious if you think about it because you can feel the heat in your skin after being in the sun a while at sea level, even with suncream on. The lacrimation is not only a reflex to warn you that your eye doesn't wish to be subjected to the intense/bright light because it may cause damage to the eye (see HEV below which is thought to be behind solar/eclipse blindness), but also as a preventative measure taken by the eye to avoid the drying (from the thermal effect of the light) to the cornea by evaporating the tear film. Maintenance of the tear film is one of the factors paramount to clear vision without light scatter or cloudiness, so it would be only natural for the eye to avoid the resulting corneal dryness by producing additional tears. Some suggested that it could also be a cooling mechanism for the thermal effects of the light, but it was considered to be more likely an attempt to maintain the tear film by preventing drying, and as a response to any HEV so that you look away from the brightness. The wind, if coming in through the goggle vents when skiing at speed, could also be a factor naturally although I found my eyes would run even when stood still if I left the low light goggles on too long. Photophobia or photosensitivity can vary amongst individuals and some people who are fair haired and fair skinned can be more photophobic than the next person.
As well as UV rays, sunlight also contains High Energy Visible (HEV) rays (aka blue light), these rays can penetrate deeply into the eye and have been linked to macular degeneration (says a bit about this in the UoI article). The colour of the lens or tint does matter with these rays unlike with UV. Most sunglass lenses that block a significant amount of blue light will be bronze, copper or reddish-brown according to one website. Therefore to best protect your eyes, lenses should have 100% UV protection and also absorb most HEV rays. I didn't look at many goggle company websites, but Oakley actually do state on their site that their lenses do protect against HEV as well as UV.
Oh, re choosing sunglasses and goggles, it is important to buy them from a reputable supplier obviously, as replica sunglasses or goggles may not have the UV protection you think they will or should, and also some cheap sunglasses are just bits of coloured plastic in a frame and may not have any UV protection at all, it can't be guaranteed. They shouldn't state they do have UV protection when they don't of course. I think most Snowheads buy from reputable suppliers anyway on the whole or in the case of prescription sunglasses they have obtained them from their optician anyway so this shouldn't be an issue.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
VolklAttivaS5, excellent! What was the question...?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
I'll paypal a 5er to anyone that actually reads through that whole thing (sorry Megamum, you're excluded).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
VolklAttivaS5, I got half way through and my eyes started to bleed. That's bad, right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
rob@rar, have you had unprotected exposure to UVA/UVB/UVC rays? If so then I am sure VolklAttivaS5's post can help you. I might turn it in to an audiobook
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
arv, oi! rob@rar, and you!
No I know probably hardly anyone will read it but at least I've done more than my bit. I'm not one to shirk on my responsibilities
I've seen longer posts in bloody BZK you bugs!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
VolklAttivaS5, Ah, so I was right about tint not necessarily equalling UV protection - I'm pleased about that as I was sure that was the case. Interesting article and posting - you clearly have an interest - do you work in the area? Sorry if I've missed that
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
Megamum, no, sorry, you're not right about that. As I have said, if the lens has 100% UV protection then it does, regardless of the tint, that's how all this started as, if it's not the reduced UV protection causing it, what is it!? (question answered now obviously, it's not another question )
Yes you could say I have an interest, I'm reading for a degree in the subject (Optometry, just finished 1st year though so early days) that's why I felt obliged to come back after I forgot about the UV protection being there regardless of the tint/transmission. Otherwise I wouldn't have bothered wasting my time for the sake of it, I knew it would help me by going away and asking others about this so that's why I did it. Purely selfish reasons. As well as the fact I did say originally that I'd find out and come back, so I have done so.
I've answered your post seriously by the way, unless you're pulling my leg as well
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
VolklAttivaS5,
| Quote: |
As I have said, if the lens has 100% UV protection then it does, regardless of the tint, that's how all this started as, if it's not the reduced UV protection causing it
|
Yes, that's what I thought I'd put:
| Quote: |
I assumed that most goggles would be good UVA and UVB protection regardless of the tint - after all many fashion sunglasses claim 100% UVA and UVB protection and they are often not as fully tinted as even low light ski goggles to look at them
|
In other words its something other than the tint, i.e. the materials that give the UV (at least) protection. So in theory you could get UV protection from a set of clear lenses.
No leg pulling at all - optometry is interesting. Lenses were about the only thing I understood in physic class at school.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
helmet lives in France but when i get them i can dress up in my new ski kit to see how they look and then maybe i can then go down the shops to see if i can impress some ladies 
