Art photography today, the first try of my new 'twin tube' photo rig. This is now a matter of following a list procedure, this always evokes for me the start of the film War Games, where two nuclear silo soldiers have to follow of list procedure. It is time consuming, but fairly reliable.
The tubes slide quite smoothly but not perfectly so. I realised when making it that tightening the ends will make the middle part (which consists of exactly the same components) also tight, so I first put some tape in the end parts, so that these could be tightened and keep the middle bit 'loose'. This didn't work, the fitting is so tight that the tape was pushed out. I realised that the sliding of the steel camera cradle will naturally start to carve slots into the soft aluminium, so that it was important that the aluminium tubes were always used in the same orientation.
The photography went well, better than the old 'square tube' system. It took a short hour or so to photograph 5 images with two sections each, and 4 sections for the bigger Shakespeare painting.
For any art photography with tripod, it's best to set the maximum aperture (smallest hole) and minimum ISO, this means a very long exposure time with very crisp results. A pinhole camera, for example, has everything in focus at all times, but takes a very long time to expose. I tend to snap at three levels of exposure, always at daylight white-balancing. I could set a custom white-balance, but the results always need tweaking anyway, so there is no real need. The important thing is that each photo has the same setting, so no auto-balancing. I use manual camera settings for everything except focus.
Sometimes images are too dark and need brightening, sometimes too light. I pick the best on a case by case basis. One last thing to do in Photoshop is size. I tend to shrink down to 300dpi now. My results tend to be nearer 400dpi, but space is space, and as camera technology increases it is tempting to keep expanding file sizes forever, so I limit everything to 300dpi, which is all I'll need for now. If a future museum needs a higher scan, they can do this!
Here's the final Moon Over Shakespeare:
After doing this, I decided to fit the rig up again and set a fixed position for everything. I marked a notch in the tubes so that they'll always be fitted in the same way, then slid the cradle up and down and polished the tubes with wet-and-dry 400-grit, until it slid smoothly. I could see thin lines on the tubes where the cradle caught, a guide for sanding. Because it was fitted up, the ends where the tubes grip were not rubbed, so the problem with the tape is solved too.
One other thing I did was fix my filing system.
From the start I've filed my artworks with a code number: G (for graphics), a number, then variant, eg: G41A is my first oil painting Girl in the Woods. The variant was originally for different colour variations of digital work, and sometimes used for other versions of a painting. Gradually I stopped doing that... I now generally assign a new number to a new version, if the new version is considered a new artwork, but even one painting has other images associated with it. I might draw a shaded study, or paint a colour study or other test. These I consider variations. Almost all of my paintings have an underdrawing. I don't generally code these, but could do so with ease. So, these variants are generally studies or tests rather than anything worthy of exhibition, and these are often letters beyond A, with A generally being the main artwork.
Occasionally I've got a full version with a later letter. My Romans/Albion painting in the Grosvenor Museum is coded G140D, for example, with two studies A and B, and C being a full previous version. If I painted it now, I make the finished version A (not for any technical reason, just convention and ease) and made the full alternative version, G140C, a second artwork entirely, but still, you can see how the system is flexible enough to file new artworks AND any alternatives or preparatory material or studies that are exclusively associated with an artwork.
There is also a separate code for published editions. Generally a painting is 'published' when it is finished, but I might want more reproductions/prints, and these need to be coded, or even numbered, too. So every artwork is followed by a publication letter and number. For original paintings, the code is generally A; and 1 because there is only one original. For digital artworks though, the number might be higher because you might print more than one 'original'. Digital art that isn't printed doesn't count as published - it would get confusing if a jpg here or there was counted as two 'publications'.
Extra editions have a separate code. So G41A (Girl in the Woods) is a painting. The original work is fully coded G41A-A1: G - painting, 41 - Girl in the Woods, A - variant, A - edition (original), number 1. G41A-B1 is a first reproduction of G41A, for example, and G41A-B2 is a second print. I generally use C for my limited edition reproductions and B for any unlimited or un-numbered reproductions. So, my first Richard Dadd reproduction (edition 100) is coded G427A-C1.
Today I noted that each variant needs a different edition code too, so added this to my catalogue. I've never really needed this; all studies etc. were originals. I'd never needed a print of a study, and still don't, but I realised that it would be correct to list the edition codes for all variants of each work.
I list everything in text form, like this:
G41 Girl In The Woods (after van Gogh)
Date Filed
22 Aug 2004
Variant A: Original.
Format: Winton oil on canvas board, size 255x203 mm.
Medium Used (Underpainting)
etc.
Colours Used (Underpainting)
etc.
Medium Used (Layer 1)
etc.
Colours Used (Layer 1)
etc.
Published Editions
A: Original.
C: Limited Edition Giclee Reproductions.
Variant B: Study.
Format: oil on carboard, size 200x100mm.
Published Editions
A: Original.
Chronology
22 Aug (2004): Painted.
30 Aug: etc.
Notes
Any general notes, thoughts, day by day diary of work on this artwork.
So this forms a fairly good way to file artwork and how and when they were made, as well as keep track of reproductions. You could list exhibition histories in the Published Editions section. I did this but I got tedious as this information was already duplicated in an exhibitions list. I do list sales and registered owners there.
