Maya Lei wrote:
Most doctors I know (and I know a lot) will not do it because their eyes are a part of their livelihood and they don't need to risk the chance having a bad outcome.

A friend of mine's dad had to get it redone 5 times.

But many other people have had positive outcomes.

This is true.. I'm not sure if this is worth potentially risking ones career and livelihood even if the risk is small.

Many people’s goals to this procedure are to see more clearly, but don't take into account the other visual aspect that may be affected too.  Having sharper sight, doesn't necessarily mean better vision.

Most people may not notice the difference in contrast especially and chalk the procedure up to a successful one, but I'm sure a seasoned photographer would "see" it the same way (no pun intended)..


Example:
Just recently, I bought a new monitor for my editing computer.  I thought my old screen was great, until I installed this new one.  The contrast ratio on this new one is significantly better.  Boy was I way off on some of my color corrections, levels, and details on some of my work when I saw it on the superior screen.  Of course most laymen thought my work was just fine before but the differences were HUGE to me.  I am spending hours readjusting some of my work correctly now.

I could see this as potentially being equal for laser eye correction.  Most people (non-photographers) wont notice those differences, but they are still very important.

ddelacruz wrote:
I've done it.
One of the best things I've ever done!
No problems at all here.

You are able to zone all shades correctly still?  Can I ask how you picked the place where you got the procedure done?  Was it a refferal?  Reputation?  Price?

Mike Colwell Photograph wrote:
I had it done about six months ago. It is the best money I have ever spent. I do still have to wear my cheaters to read very small print.

How about for manual focusing on small objects such as eyes on a full body shot?

MikeC Photo wrote:
had it done about six months ago. It is the best money I have ever spent. I do still have to wear my cheaters to read very small print.

what, may one ask, was the condition of your eyes prior to the surgery? did you suffer near- or far-sightedness? stigmatism? were you already wearing reading glasses? etc.?

~ F

Trevor Snyder wrote:
I did it in 1999 at a place called LASIK Plus. No problems, other than my eyes are drier than they used to be. I went from 800/20 and 900/20 (maybe that's reversed, but I was blind) to 20/20 and 15/20. I had a month of really bad night vision and halos. Then it went away.

Interesting, I did not know that the halos sometimes go away.  Would you say that your eyesight with out glasses now is better than it was *with* glasses before?

Mercy Studio wrote:
I'm surprised this topic hasn't been discussed more thoroughly.  Instead I still see dumbass topics about escorts to shoots and equipment vs equipment posts.

I saw a commercial on TV the other night that offered LASIK in my area.  And I thought this was a great deal because I’m sick of having to deal with smudges and sweat while shooting. 

As a photographer I obviously need to be able to work with colors and contrasts as much as sharpness in my work.  I wanted to make sure I would not compromise any of my eyes natural abilities with this procedure.  So I decided to do some research on it because in this biz having good working eyes (with or without corrective lenses) is crucial.

I found out these side effects are more common than advertised:

Haloing and star bursts around light sources at night
Double vision or ghosting
Loss of contrast – black is not long black – it’s a dark grey and everything has a dim look to it
Sigh reversal – nearsighted person becomes a farsighted person
And a bunch more..

In the end I found there were too many risks of negative after effects which ultimately led to my not getting the surgery.

I’d like to hear some thoughts from people – especially photographers - if they’ve gotten the surgery both positive and negative.

FINALLY!!!! Some truly useful information for photographers! You may not realize how much the 411 on this is appreciated. People need to know the risks before doing this surgery.  I thank you very much!   

Mike Colwell Photograph wrote:
I had it done about six months ago. It is the best money I have ever spent. I do still have to wear my cheaters to read very small print.

I'm glad it worked for you.  It seems to have been good for my sister too.  But I'd hold off doing it for myself until I know what the long term effects are.  Besides, my eyesite isn't really too bad .. yet!  lol

Mercy Studio wrote:

Interesting, I did not know that the halos sometimes go away.  Would you say that your eyesight with out glasses now is better than it was *with* glasses before?

My eyesight now with LASIK is better than it was with contacts during the day. It's better peripherally than it was with glasses. I have none of the issues mentioned elsewhere in this thread - contrast, farsightedness, etc. I do have dry eye from time to time and carry drops at all times for that issue. I never had dry eye previously. At night, in my right eye, which had astigmatism, my night vision is just slightly blurry. I am left handed and my left eye is dominant, so that does not bother me.

I sometimes get slight blurriness after squinting hard, and it clears within 1-2 seconds. I am an avid rifle marksman and I can hit a human target just fine with my new eyes at 500 yards. I can now surf without worrying about losing a contact. I can swim in heavy waves with confidence. I wake up in the morning without contact calluses, and can see right away. I do not have to mess with eye care products (other than drops). For me, it was totally worth the risk.

My co-worker just had LASIK and he can see perfectly, but he did have a huge broken blood vessel develop in one eye. His doctor told him it would heal with no long term issues.

Any surgery carries a risk. We enhance our bodies in lots of ways. Bigger boobs, heart repair, etc - it's up to the individual to determine whether the benefits outweigh the risks. For me, they did, and I would do it all over again.

Rich Davis wrote:
I don't want to get lasik and at 60 my eyes are still very good.  I wear reading glasses, but nothing else.

My area of study in engineering was in lasers.  Were I interested in lasic, I would go to my local medical library and study research papers to see what was what.  If you have doubts, that's what I recommend you do.

That's exactly what I did - I waited for the third generation of LASIK machines to be put into use. Then I researched the various manufacturers and choose a particular machine made by Bausch and Lomb. Then I found a company that used that third generation machine and I talked to the doctor's patients.

I read about all the risks and I got the surgery.

Trevor Snyder wrote:

My eyesight now with LASIK is better than it was with contacts during the day. It's better peripherally than it was with glasses. I have none of the issues mentioned elsewhere in this thread - contrast, farsightedness, etc. I do have dry eye from time to time and carry drops at all times for that issue. I never had dry eye previously. At night, in my right eye, which had astigmatism, my night vision is just slightly blurry. I am left handed and my left eye is dominant, so that does not bother me.

I sometimes get slight blurriness after squinting hard, and it clears within 1-2 seconds. I am an avid rifle marksman and I can hit a human target just fine with my new eyes at 500 yards. I can now surf without worrying about losing a contact. I can swim in heavy waves with confidence. I wake up in the morning without contact calluses, and can see right away. I do not have to mess with eye care products (other than drops). For me, it was totally worth the risk.

My co-worker just had LASIK and he can see perfectly, but he did have a huge broken blood vessel develop in one eye. His doctor told him it would heal with no long term issues.

Any surgery carries a risk. We enhance our bodies in lots of ways. Bigger boobs, heart repair, etc - it's up to the individual to determine whether the benefits outweigh the risks. For me, they did, and I would do it all over again.

My sister does not like to drive at night after LASIK surgery.  Sometimes I think she still gets blurry vision at night.  But she is very happy with it over all.  As you've said "Any surgery carries a risk."  It's something worth discussion with a doctor or others who have done it.

Robert Helm wrote:
I had cataract surgery a year ago and it was the best thing I ever did. i was legally blind in one eye ( my favored shooting eye) and was told  the same for the other eye in 18 months. I had no choice and little to lose but to me surgery is not elective, especially eye surgery

Technology and science do have their benefits. Thank God for intrepid pioneers in these fields.

Patrick Walberg wrote:
FINALLY!!!! Some truly useful information for photographers! You may not realize how much the 411 on this is appreciated. People need to know the risks before doing this surgery.  I thank you very much!   

No need to thank me.  Everything that I've heard about the procudure has been incredibly positive or incredibly negative.. this leaves me with a lot of questions.

People who are understandibly pissed off at a botched predure will obviously harshly condemn it loudly and horribly.  One must understand that even though its tragic, that to properly come to a conclusion, one must evaluate quanity of complaints rather than quality..

50,000 people with incredibly botched procedures seems like a HUGE number.. but what if that is 50,000 out of 50 million people?  Then the risk isn't as great.. (numbers are made up).  But the sound of 50,000 people bitching still makes a lot of noise.

what if out of those 49,950,000 people, 25 million are perfectly happy with what they got because they can see clearer without glasses, but their contrast is off and they just don't notice or care?

I can look at all the websites in the worls and get horror stories, but I still wont know the real stats.  Thats why I am here posting here, where people should be very critical of their eye-sight.  Real facts are needed!

i'm glad you find this post to be usefull.  I hope we really learn something.

You know how you see those eye charts in Opomotrist offices?  With the "E" on top.. they dont have ones that have Shades of Black, White, Grey, Colours, and gradients that I am aware of (Yet).. so who is to say what's real.

Trevor Snyder wrote:
Technology and science do have their benefits. Thank God for intrepid pioneers in these fields.

..And guinea pigs. 

Mercy Studio wrote:

..And guinea pigs. 

Yes, and guinea pigs

If I had to make a choice between being a guinea pig and being a corpse, I know what I would choose. Of course LASIK is only a choice between statistically improbably blindness and better vision - and everything in between.

Trevor Snyder wrote:
At night, in my right eye, which had astigmatism, my night vision is just slightly blurry. I am left handed and my left eye is dominant, so that does not bother me.

Do you then need glasses at night to correct this?
I wont how I would handle that - considering most of my shooting is done at night in pitch dark with only continious light or no artificial light, only tripods on slow slow shutter speeds

I would love to not have to worry about eye care products.. and wake up without having to fumble with glasses..  I envy you.

If your sight wasn't as bad as it was before.. for example, say you only needed glasses to read, would you have still done it?

Mercy Studio wrote:

Do you then need glasses at night to correct this?
I wont how I would handle that - considering most of my shooting is done at night in pitch dark with only continious light or no artificial light, only tripods on slow slow shutter speeds

I would love to not have to worry about eye care products.. and wake up without having to fumble with glasses..  I envy your.

If your sight wasn't as bad as it was before.. for example, say you only needed glasses to read, would you have still done it?

The machines that perform 95% of LASIK are now in their fifth and sixth generations, according to my understanding - further minimizing the risk of permanent night vision problems.

I wanted 20/20 vision and I got it. I had the surgery in my mid 20's. By the time I hit my mid 40's I will probably need reading glasses. LASIK does nothing to stop your eyes from aging...

Would I have been happy with an increase from mostly blind without corrective lenses to slightly near-sighted? Yes. But not as happy as I am with perfect vision. Anything you do carries some risk. I prefer to take the calculated risks where the odds are in my favor

Mercy Studio wrote:

No need to thank me.  Everything that I've heard about the procudure has been incredibly positive or incredibly negative.. this leaves me with a lot of questions.

People who are understandibly pissed off at a botched predure will obviously harshly condemn it loudly and horribly.  One must understand that even though its tragic, that to properly come to a conclusion, one must evaluate quanity of complaints rather than quality..

50,000 people with incredibly botched procedures seems like a HUGE number.. but what if that is 50,000 out of 50 million people?  Then the risk isn't as great.. (numbers are made up).  But the sound of 50,000 people bitching still makes a lot of noise.

what if out of those 49,950,000 people, 25 million are perfectly happy with what they got because they can see clearer without glasses, but their contrast is off and they just don't notice or care?

I can look at all the websites in the worls and get horror stories, but I still wont know the real stats.  Thats why I am here posting here, where people should be very critical of their eye-sight.  Real facts are needed!

i'm glad you find this post to be usefull.  I hope we really learn something.

You know how you see those eye charts in Opomotrist offices?  With the "E" on top.. they dont have ones that have Shades of Black, White, Grey, Colours, and gradients that I am aware of (Yet).. so who is to say what's real.

Photographers do take their eyesite very seriously. We have to!  It is a personal choice or option in most cases, so people should consider what could happen and if they are willing to take the risk.

Le Beck Photography wrote:
Do Not Do Not Do Not have this done.

Do I have to post photos I've taken of disasters in my job as a Ophthalmic Photographer? If something goes wrong you are NOT elegible for a corneal transplant. Those go to those who need them, not those who fix what is not broken.

You will NEVER see a Retinal Surgeon or a Corneal Surgeon have this or any similar procedure. Guess why. There is Always a loss of at least two lines of vision. If you were 20/20 best corrected the best you can hope for is 20/25. I'm 20/15 best corrected. Why would I give that up for vanity?

Don't tell me it's for sports. Prescription goggles, scuba masks etc abound. They protect your eyes from penetrating objects. If you're over 35 or 40 you will STILL need glasses for reading, driving, etc.

The only people who should contemplate this are the extremely near sighted, those with keratoconus (a pyramid shaped cornea) or those with astigmatism so severe it cannot be corrected easily or at all.

Don't believe any doctor who tells you it's absolutely safe and you'll see perfectly. The Ophthalmologists who do this are only interested in one thing: Money!!!! that's all!! period. They couldn't care less about you unless you're so rich you could help them get even richer.

Do you have a precentage rate of failures?  It would seem to me that you see the worst cases ... but how many procedures are successful vs. the disasters?

Le Beck Photography wrote:
Do Not Do Not Do Not have this done.

Do I have to post photos I've taken of disasters in my job as a Ophthalmic Photographer? If something goes wrong you are NOT elegible for a corneal transplant. Those go to those who need them, not those who fix what is not broken.

You will NEVER see a Retinal Surgeon or a Corneal Surgeon have this or any similar procedure. Guess why. There is Always a loss of at least two lines of vision. If you were 20/20 best corrected the best you can hope for is 20/25. I'm 20/15 best corrected. Why would I give that up for vanity?

Don't tell me it's for sports. Prescription goggles, scuba masks etc abound. They protect your eyes from penetrating objects. If you're over 35 or 40 you will STILL need glasses for reading, driving, etc.

The only people who should contemplate this are the extremely near sighted, those with keratoconus (a pyramid shaped cornea) or those with astigmatism so severe it cannot be corrected easily or at all.

Don't believe any doctor who tells you it's absolutely safe and you'll see perfectly. The Ophthalmologists who do this are only interested in one thing: Money!!!! that's all!! period. They couldn't care less about you unless you're so rich you could help them get even richer.

Whoah!!!!  Where did you get your information from????  Yes you may still need glasses for reading over the age of 40 (there are options to avoid this), but I'm afraid you are seriously misinformed.  Our retinal surgeon HAD IT DONE... there goes that theory.

Keratoconus is an ABSOLUTE CONTRAINDICATION for LASIK.  I'm also a clinical photographer for our office, and I have zero photographs of bad surgeries.  It's not about the money, I promise you...

You are either poorly informed or you have a really bad LASIK practice near you.

Lee Dowse wrote:
OK.... Let me help clarify some of the issues raised in this thread.

My "day job" is as the refractive surgery coordinator for a large multi-specialty ophthalmology clinic in South Carolina.  I helped establish our refractive surgery practice and have worked closely with our surgeon over the last 10 years and have personally seen the results of every patient that has had LASIK at our office.  With that said... even though I'm no physician, I can give a fair amount of insight into this topic.

LASIK or LASer In-Situ Keratomileusis is the safest and most effective way to surgically correct your vision.  Studies have been done on contrast sensitivity and for the most part are inconclusive.  There have been some studies that SUGGEST there is a loss of contrast sensitivity, but I assure you it's not so significant as to "turn blacks gray".  It's also largely dependent on the amount of correction you have done.  The latest trend is in advanced ablation algorithms (better known as CustomVue LASIK) and is without a doubt a proven and effective treatment for nearsightedness, farsightedness, and astigmatism.  CustomVue LASIK corrects for high-order aberrations and in clinical studies shows results that are actually better than what can be achieved with glasses or contact lenses.

Overcorrection is HOGWASH!!!!  Most facilities use conservative nomograms that if anything are designed to leave patients slightly undercorrected.  For the most part, patients achieve the results they desire after the first treatment, but a small percentage of the population may need enhancements.  An even smaller percentage of the population (less than 5%) may be slightly overcorrected (make a nearsighted person farsighted), but that too can be corrected with an enhancement. 

There are lens implant procedures that are being done that can GREATLY affect contrast sensitivity and anyone working with color and/or design should be aware of those possible side effects.  There are many many many other considerations that are far beyond the scope of what I am willing to post.  Things like... are you nearsighted or farsighted?  Are you presbyopic (over 40 loss of accommodation)?  Diabetic?  Pregnant?  Nursing?  Corneal Disease?  Certain medications can effect vision.

In short, I think it is unwise to post medical suggestions or make blanket statements about surgical procedures you are not fully educated about.  No one can advise a general popluation about any specific procedure(s).  The only way to find out if ANY surgical procedure is appropriate for ANY specific individual, it is wise to consult a medical doctor, not a modeling forum.

Oh... and yes, I'm also a photographer, and yes I've had LASIK.

Oh yeah... ghost images and double vision.... Yes it's a risk with LASIK... we've surveyed every patient before and after surgery asking specifically those questions and asked them to rate ghost images and double vision and difficulty with night vision on a scale of 0-4.  The large majority of patients score them the same, but we do have a few patients who say it's worse after surgery.... Then again we have some who say that it's better.

CustomVue patients note no noticeable change in night vision after surgery.

Thank you for the input, some of the informatin I recieved however was from your counterpart at the local office here - specifically the contrast issue.  This is why i need to be sure, and why I want to head from MORE photographers who have had the expearience.. that being said, the information you've given me is valuable just as much.

Mercy Studio wrote:
Thank you for the input, some of the informatin I recieved however was from your counterpart at the local office here - specifically the contrast issue.  This is why i need to be sure, and why I want to head from MORE photographers who have had the expearience.. that being said, the information you've given me is valuable just as much.

I would recommend a thorough consultation with your ophthalmologist...  ask to see their results.  If you're a candidate and decide to have it done.... get CustomVue!!!

If you're at a respectable establishment, they will be able to INFORM you, not SELL you.  If you feel like you're being SOLD.... leave!!!

My paycheck is not affected by how many people sign up for surgery...  I've talked many people OUT of having LASIK.  It's not for everyone.  There are horror stories out there if you look hard enough (as pointed out earlier).  My advice is to go to a reputable establishment...  I would avoid LASIK only centers simply because they're money is in selling patients.  A multi-specialty practice with a proven track record and has been doing LASIK for a while is your best bet.  They are less invested in "selling" LASIK and are more likely to give you the most straightforward advice. 

I would also find out if they have an in-house laser or if they use a "RORO" (roll-on roll-off).  I wouldn't recommend a RORO.

The latest technology (for Visx) is the S4 ActiveTrack with iris registration (for CustomVue).  If they do not have this laser (or equivalent).... WALK!!!

If you have specific questions or concerns... message me.  I'll give you whatever advice I can.  I have nothing to gain or lose if you do or don't have surgery.... Makes no difference to me.