i’m perpetually grateful when i’m sent to photograph people who are vastly more accomplished and important than me, and those people turn out to be gracious, thoughtful, open and giving with their time. elizabeth farnsworth certainly was this and more: a journalist, a correspondent/anchor on the newshour, a documentary filmmaker and an expert on places and events far and away. the story this picture was meant to illustrate was about her new documentary “the judge and the general” about chilean dictator pinochet and the man who investigated and prosecuted him for human rights violations.

we took the pictures at elizabeth’s home in berkeley. she was kind enough to invite me there rather than some studio, since i always prefer shooting at the subject’s home if at all possible. when i was loading equipment back into my rental car elizabeth asked me if i had ever been a dancer. maybe i slipped up and had a moment of grace that’s not usually present. later in the week someone else commented that i was built like a dancer, too. i think what all these people are saying is just that i’m skinny. in his younger years my father was a dancer on broadway, and while i have his old worn tap shoes, they don’t fit me and i certainly couldn’t do them any justice. anyway, it was a nice thing for her to say, regardless of the statement’s relation to reality.

i just received a copy of the magazine in the mail the other day, and so figured it was safe to show elizabeth a selection of out-takes from the shoot. i was disappointed to hear that she felt the pictures made her look old in a way that drew comments from her friends. she claimed not to have minded it herself, and i hope that’s true, but i’m still sorry that she didn’t find the results pleasing. as a photographer – who is decidedly not inclined towards fashion or beauty – this is a problem that comes up from time to time. unfortunately (for some subjects) you find that often the most interesting part of a person’s character (in portraits) is not also the most flattering. many traditionally “flattering” portraits lack the compelling qualities of their less glamorous out-takes. it’d be nice if every picture i took was equally beloved by the subjects and the editors, but sometimes it’s one and sometimes it’s the other. then again, sometimes i’m the only one who likes the result. oh well – as long as one of us is happy, right?

this was an odd sort of press junket. well, all press junkets are kind of odd, unnatural affairs, but this one was particularly odd as nobody really seemed to know about it. the hotel didn’t seem to know about it, and the only other media person there was a writer for some film technology blog whose name escapes me. this interview was strange in that it consisted of the writer and john sayles talking to each other on their cell phones while both sitting on a couch together. recording technology has come a long way. the result of this was that i had to set up my lights in absolute silence so it wouldn’t be recorded by the cell phones. it felt like very awkward ninja lighting.

this is one of the first frames, and i just kind of like that sayles looks a little forlorn in it. it’s a really great expression. i’m not sure if it’s indicative of how he really is, but i sure as hell feel the way he looks most days. just not quite as cool. and my ears are smaller.

sayles and i got to talking about film and aspect ratios. i, of course, complaining about the 2:3 rectangle of digital SLRs and he complaining about how he sometimes doesn’t like the widescreen format much. then he let me in on a little secret:

“you know what i do when a wide shot just isn’t working for me?”

 ”what?”

“i just stick somebody in the foreground, then i like it better.  problem solved.”

other than that, we talked mostly about blues.  oh, and for the unaware, john sayles is a director/writer/actor. go watch his movies. then go run three miles, which is what he did right after this shoot. needless to say, i did not.