Tony Rowlett
(K=1575) - Comment Date 3/13/1999
|
A tall pint of dark beer, a single-malt scotch, and a good stink-bud joint all make for some excellent... hmm, I forgot what I was going to say.
|
|
|
|
Phil Stiles
(K=143) - Comment Date 3/13/1999
|
I once heard a jazz musician say "pot don't help you play, but it do help you hear." So I find it best to save intoxicants for looking at finished prints, if at all. It's more of an appreciation thing, doesn't help with production. I can imagine a variant of Robert Capa's famous axium on combat photography: "If my pictures aren't good enough, then you're not high enough!"
|
|
|
|
Lot
(K=1558) - Comment Date 3/14/1999
|
I agree with Ellis and add: maybe it's better to be stoned when you watch your pictures made in sober state and then you'll find out that only 5% was not worth the effort.
|
|
|
|
Darron Spohn
(K=781) - Comment Date 3/15/1999
|
My experience is that alcohol makes it more difficult to shoot. At the Kerrville Folk Festival I had many more keepers when I quit drikning while working. Most of the problems I had when imbining were not being able to hold the camera still in low light. Maybe a monopod woulod have helped, but I was working too fast to use one and hand holding a 200mm lens at 125th is difficult enough when sober.
As far as hallucinogens are concerned, I do not remember taking any. Just remember the current Apple ad campaign and "think different."
And Tony, next time you're in California look me up. I always have plenty of single-malt Scotch in stock.
|
|
|
|
Trib
(K=2701) - Comment Date 3/15/1999
|
Cough cough caaack,......(h)ere' take this...ccuuh ccchhuuhh, oh um what was the question again?
|
|
|
|
Tony Rowlett
(K=1575) - Comment Date 3/15/1999
|
Darron, sounds like a plan! Something I highly enjoy; sippin' on good quality stuff and having good quality camera conversation.
I think a single drink can enhance candid photography because it removes inhibition somewhat.
|
|
|
|
Howard Creech
(K=3161) - Comment Date 3/15/1999
|
Photography is intoxicating enough, no need for additional stimulants. A nice buzz is it's own justification.
|
|
|
|
Pico diGoliardi
(K=1327) - Comment Date 5/31/1999
|
Chemicals never, ever helped my visual work. I thought it did at the moment, but the illusion passed with the withdrawal of the substance. One startling discovery was under acid (LSD), where _everything_ was profoundly transformed _except_ my photographs. Others' photos were seen anew (for the duration), but mine were like windows full of the moment they were made; thoughts, smells, sensations, intentions embraced by the frame, unchanged. And disheartening! Then.
Not to wax romantic over the tradegy of alcoholism, but many writers seem to have retained a special facility for language while under the influence, even through protracted periods of withdrawl & reuse. I take it to point to something about the nature of western language, and the state of the sense of the literature of experience back then which was largely self-centred and, in my humble opinion, a precursor of the birth of the Me Generation. As Hunter Thompson said (and I hate him),"I cannot honestly recommend drugs and alcohol to young people today, BUT IT WORKED FOR ME." That era is passing. I hope.
But photography - no, best done with a clear head full of intent.
-- Pico
|
|
|
|
