I'm an artist in residence, I've still been able to accept commercial jobs, and what I'll do is I'll make little videos on the side that I then bring back to the school and show the students the next day.

The work is primarily subject-driven. All decisions flow from there. The photographs are all made in response to a unique subject, in particular context, at a specific moment in time. The thoughtful preparedness that defines my working method actually facilitates spontaneity and allows me to embrace surprise. I always have a game plan but view it as merely the jumping off point.

I wanted to grow in terms of making pictures, not adapting to new software and technology. But that's the game now.

I was shooting lots of large format portraits then but I've since changed to digital, where you have so much more control. There are millions of things you can do with digital; you can be more spontaneous, and you're more in control of your color palette.

The weirdest thing to me is that magazines would never do this for their writers. They would never hire a writer who writes for another magazine; they want to have their own stable of writers. Newsweek would never hire a TIME writer, and TIME would never hire a Newsweek writer - but they would both hire the same photographer to shoot a cover for them.

My brother used to say some people have an "inferiority simplex." It's not that they're under the delusion that they're inferior; they actually are inferior and they secretly know it.

I hate to say it because I think people are risk averse these days more than ever. Before they even pick up the phone, they know what the picture's going to be. So there's a certain comfort in that, a certain security that they can lay out the cover of the magazine and kind of know what it's going to be.