Peter, I'm an avid and constant reader, not to mention artist, and have
never had any particular vision problems... The type in this book is an
act of lunacy and probably a crime against humanity.
> > The captions are, as you
say excessively small. However the pair of the lowest > dioptre glasses
from my local chemists at around 5 dollars cope sith these far > more
easily than using a magnifying glass. > > I find a somewhat stronger pair
indispensable for spotting prints. For most > close working tasks they are
a far better alternative to a magnifying glass, > and also cheaper.
I have a splendid magnifier for spotting prints -- a band around
the head with a visor that goes up and down, so that the hands are free
yet you can with one push return to "normal." The visor drops right over
my regular glasses, and gives no problem with bifocals. I have tried
probably a dozen different formats of magnifier and this is far and away
the best. (Bought it from Tri Ess years ago, but have seen it in chemical
house catalogs. But if you get one be sure to get the greater degree of
magnification. Some are only 1 1/2 times, hardly worth the trouble.)
*However* I don't think I should have to read a book with this -- or
any other magnifier. Do you?
Judy