Frank Hamilton, Baillieston optician, closed

I’ve been trying to collect these pics for weeks, but somehow never ended up in Baillieston with a camera.

That said, I did catch the place in some night shots, but if you find them, you’ll find they were pretty poor, being mostly test shots for camera evaluation.

Finally, I’ve got the pics I wanted, including the letter and sticker in the window.

As will be seen from the latter, this business has been a near permanent fixture in Baillieston’s Main Street, and if you check Google’s Street View, you’ll find it attached to a house, on its left.

I had always assumed the two were connected, and how handy it was to have your work connected to your home – no travelling time – but found this assumption (as it seems most are) to be wrong some years ago (when I became acquainted with the owner, and found out he lived elsewhere). In fact, he was neighbour to someone I knew in Baillieston, and lived just a few streets away, but NOT in the attached house.

Facade detail.

The same letter was placed in each window, explaining the closure, and other details.

The other item in the window was a college crest.

What happened to 77 South Scott Street?

Being curious, I looked for 77 South Scott Street, to see where things began.

Initially, I couldn’t find it!

The number appeared to lie between two semi-detached houses, which can be seen in aerial views, and appeared to jump from 73 and 75 to 79 and 81.

However, this was an anomaly cause by the first semi being not two houses built together, but FOUR!

Two face into South Scott Street and have conventional entrances, numbers 73 and 75, while two others are built to either side, into the gable ends of the building with their entrances on the sides, being numbers 71 and 77.

I almost missed this, as I was initially just looking from the road – it was only after I glanced at the gable ends of the building, and noticed the entrance doors! Later, I spotted the small hose numbers, on the corners/edges, facing into the street

Although I’d managed to dig up the 1967 OS map of the area, which is out of copyright, it only showed the houses that had been added since 1945, but not the numbers, Final confirmation came when I zoomed into a modern line drawing of the street, and it resolved into the four street numbers of that particular building.

Another Baillieston surprise

Will the surprises never end?

Although I was in Baillieston only a few night ago, I didn’t spot this new, and somewhat disgusting (to me at least) optician.

There’s a perfectly good optician’s in Baillieston already, which has been there for years, and only a few metres away on the other side of the road.

It seems to have managed quite nicely without all those revolting brand names plastered all over its façade.

I wouldn’t touch this place with the proverbial pole, with all those brand names being pushed – this place is only good for the sheeple who feel some sort of need to have these ‘badges of honour’ on display for all to see, to show the world they are ‘kewl’.

Not sure if I would even rate it ‘better’ than the betting shop it replaces.

It’s hard to miss, being white and brightly lit, so either I need to visit the other optician across the road, or this place wasn’t up and running, with it lights on like this, when I passed the same spot before.

If I did that sort of thing, I’d make a jibe about that being the owner’s BMW parked in front, paid for by the sheeple who pay for ‘branded’ gear, but I don’t, so I won’t.

OH!  ;)

Baillieston JLL Eyewear Ltd

Kelvingrove glasses – pic fail 2

I caught these glasses (an old sign for a Glasgow optician) by chance a while ago, and that first pic was an absolute disaster despite being taken with a ‘proper’ camera which is supposed to cater for extremes automatically.

The illuminated eyes within the frame burnt out completely, and there weren’t even pixels to be recovered by processing the original.

When I recently managed to make a trip to Kelvingrove while it was actually open, I was standing in one of the galleries and realised I was looking at the same sign, but from the other side.

Time for a retry of the same shot, but from this alternative viewpoint (which looked better in terms of exposure), although I only had the compact to hand this time. (If you wonder why that’s relevant, have a look at the detail in the stone columns supporting the arch, as seen in the previous pic.)

While it’s a lot better than that first capture, which I put down to the better lighting conditions from this ‘other’ side, I’m personally still calling it a ‘fail’ as so much of the eye detail is STILL burnt out, so much so that although it looks better, there was still little to lift by further processing. Once a pixel is burnt out, it’s burnt out, end of story. Unlike underexposed shadows, where detail can often be lifted, a 100% white pixel is always 100%.

Maybe third time lucky after learning – next time I’ll shoot from this same side, but either hit the exposure compensation to knock it back a little, or be naughty, and switch to spot metering and expose purely for the eyes.

Kelvingrove Optician’s Sign

Eye see not every picture turns out as expected

I doubt many who have only ever used digital cameras have any REAL appreciation of the ‘smarts’ built into their little ‘Point and Shoot’ marvels, especially camera phones, which I regularly see taking pics under circumstances I would have struggles to record a black and white images, let alone a reasonably rendered colour version (doubt anyone remembers, but colour film could suffer colour shifts under various circumstances).

My own ‘proper’ camera has various corrections built-in, which can be commanded to apply themselves to the recorded image, and correct for distortion, too bright, too dark, and who know what other ‘problem’ areas before the final image is recorded. These work well, and although I kept the previous model of the camera which has none of these, I stay with the new one, and have its predecessor as an emergency backup (although the chances of needing it are slim).

BUT…

It’s easy to forget what’s happening, and make a casual mistake.

The pic below is one example, and worth remembering the lesson it contains.

While one might recover underexposed pixels – OVEREXPOSED pixels are gone for good.

It’s a simple fact that dark areas of pics are not usually 0% and can be amplified and recovered to at least some degree – but when an area is 100% saturated white then there’s nothing left to recover. While backlighting is seldom a problem thanks to digital exposure control, an overexposed 100% saturated white area is STILL lost, and can’t be recovered, at least not meaningfully.

Case in point, this pic of an illuminated optician’s sign rescued from Glasgow and cleverly displayed in Kelvingrove.

I passed the arch, and stepped back to grab a pic in passing, without thinking – oops!

While the human eye can cope, even a good digital sensor can’t see the same – and we have a decent background, but most of the eyes in the glasses are burnt out by overexposure. What can be recovered is of little use.

Still, it’s nice to see there are still some shots that need a little SKILL to capture – and I will have to remember this the next time I manage a visit.

I’ll be honest and say that even though I am used to spotting scenes where the human eye can catch the extremes of exposure that a camera can’t, this one didn’t really look like one, so I was at least a little surprised to find the ‘fail’ when I got home and reviewed the day’s collection – but the illusion is probably down the museum favouring lower light levels to reduce damage to the exhibits from bright light.

The challenge has been issued – capture this with BOTH the background AND the eyes properly exposed.

Kelvingrove Optician’s Sign