What I am interested in now is the landscape. Pictures without people. I wouldn't be surprised if eventually there are no people in my pictures. It is so emotional.

I am impressed with what happens when someone stays in the same place and you took the same picture over and over and it would be different, every single frame.

I’ve said about a million times that the best thing a young photographer can do is to stay close to home. Start with your friends and family, the people who will put up with you. Discover what it means to be close to your work, to be intimate with a subject. Measure the difference between that and working with someone you don't know as much about. Of course there are many good photographs that have nothing to do with staying close to home, and I guess what I'm really saying is that you should take pictures of something that has meaning for you

I don't try to overintellectua lize my concepts of people. In fact, the ideas I have, if you talk about them, they seem extremely corny and it's only in their execution that people can enjoy them...It's something I've learned to trust: The stupider it is, the better it looks.

In a portrait, you have room to have a point of view. The image may not be literally what's going on, but it's representative.

Irving Penn said he didn't want to photograph anyone under 60, and I think there is some truth about it.

A lot can be told from what happens in between the main moments.