I would say to any artist: Don't be repressed in your work, dare to experiment, consider any urge, if in a new direction all the better.

Ultimately success or failure in photographing people depends on the photographer's ability to understand his fellow man.

In common with other artists the photographer wants his finished print to convey to others his own response to his subject. In the fulfillment of this aim, his greatest asset is the directness of the process he employs. But this advantage can only be retained if he simplifies his equipment and technic to the minimum necessary, and keeps his approach from from all formula, art-dogma, rules and taboos. Only then can he be free to put his photographic sight to use in discovering and revealing the nature of the world he lives in.

This then: to photograph a rock, have it look like a rock, but be more than a rock.

A photograph has no value unless it looks exactly like a photograph and nothing else.

It seems so utterly naive that landscape - not that of the pictorial school - is not considered of "social significance" when it has a far more important bearing on the human race of a given locale than excrescences called cities.

"Only with effort can the camera be forced to lie: basically it is an honest medium: so the photographer is much more likely to approach nature in a spirit of inquiry, of communion, instead of with the saucy swagger of self-dubbed "artists"."