Artist Story: Tom Van Eynde

Tom Van Eynde

I went to school for photography with a major in still photography and photo history. I also studied museum practices, which lead to a job in a museum. I started photographing art works for others because I had burned out doing museum work. The photographer at the museum I was working for found she needed a lifestyle change at the same time. So it was an easy change from a career in museum practices, back to my original love of photography. Besides, photographing art is much more interesting than, say, weddings, or babies. Photographing other artists’ work is not as rewarding as doing your own work, but it does allow me to see a wide range of what artists are doing. It also allows me to do my own art without having to worry about funding.

Slides or digital?

You have to know what you are going to do with the images of your art before you set out to photograph them. If you are sending them to someone living in the last century who wants only slides, then that’s what you shoot. My choice would be to shoot digital. Any reproduction is going to convert the images to digital anyway, and direct digital is going to be sharper and faster than going through scanning.

That’s the simple way to look at it. But let’s look at all the things you have to do to shoot slides:

FIRST, exposure has to be right on. A half stop can make a big difference in how your artwork looks. Let’s include color shifts in the film here also, because if the film has a green tint to it, you’re going to have to correct it. Oh! I forgot the problem with the color of the lights you’re using. Maybe you have mixed lighting in your installation, like incandescent and florescent; this is also going to cause problems. The simplest way to correct this is to shoot it and see how it looks and add the proper corrections, than re-shoot it with new film. Do you know how to make those corrections? Are you prepared to spend the time and the money again? Remember real slides cost about $1.20 each, if you bracket your exposure, your cost jumps by a factor of 3, so, how much money do you have? Don’t forget to figure in your time. Little things like trips to the photo store, the photo lab, slide sheets, and higher postage rates. With digital you can just E-Mail them!

SECOND, the slide has to look great when you shoot it (centered, square, etc.) and the background has to make the artwork easy to see. Dark artwork on white; light artwork on black. Add the costs for background material, and the time making sure everything is right.

It seems like I have already made the case for digital, because all these problems are easily solved in digital, with a little help from Photoshop. Oh, I know you’re an artist and hate computers, but this is the 21st century and the computer and the things that it will do for you is a big part of putting you in control of your art-life. Web pages, self publishing and sending CDs will expand the reach of your art, both cheaper and faster than sending slides to people who have to hold them up to a light to look at them. A CD is a lot cheaper than slides to send; in fact they are so cheap that galleries don’t feel obligated to return them! The same CD that has your images also can have your artist statement and resume on it. I hope you're beginning to see my point.

Just remember, what does the person you send your images to want? That is the controlling factor. I might rethink sending anything to someone who wants only slides. I want my art to look its best. My artwork is going to look better on the screen, and it’s going to be easier for them to look at. Here’s where you say: aren’t computer screens each a little different? And I say: yes, but at least the image is shown bigger. I’d hate to say that color here isn’t important, but I can’t control other people’s monitors. I want them to see the art. I used to shoot a lot more 4x5 transparences, not for reproduction, but because collector’s eyes aren’t as good as they once were, they have a hard time looking at slides. Now the galleries send E-mails or ink jet prints, both are infinitely cheaper than transparences, and since they are larger, they are easy to look at. They want the color to be correct, but seeing the art better is most important.

What if you do need to apply with slides? How easy is it to make slides from digital files?

It’s simple to convert digital images to slides; you simply take or send the digital files to a photo lab that has a slide printer. Precision Photo & Imaging on Grand Ave. seems to do the most color correct slides I’ve seen. While $9.50 for the first slide of an image is expensive, you’re going to be doing it less & less anyway. I do understand that some people have found cheaper slide out-puts on the web. I haven’t looked, because I need the most accurate and quickest service I can find. I have always liked the personal contact of the local lab over just sending them away. Anyway, I think it’s still cheaper than what film mistakes might cost.

Do it yourself or hire a professional?

Before you start: do you have the proper equipment? If you’re doing slides, you’re going to need--along with the camera--a tripod, a decent light meter, and lights that match your film. If you're doing digital you still need the camera, tripod, the light meter and lights but since you're not shooting film, you can just adjust the exposure until it looks right on the screen. Here your mistakes are free. Just change things until it looks right; no film, no cost!

We live in Chicago, so if you don’t own the equipment, or know someone that does, you can rent the proper stuff. You should know that the rental fee of the equipment I bring when I’m hired to do a job costs more than 2-hours of shooting time. When you hire someone, those fees are free to you; you don’t have to go get equipment and take it back later and you get someone else to operate it. Really, this gets to the heart of the matter: what is your time worth? When you hire someone (let’s assume they are good) they will bring everything they need, they hopefully have seen the problems your art creates and they know how to fix them. They are probably going to do it a lot faster than you; plus, they are going to walk the film through the lab, look at exposure checks, correct the files, and get the film or disk back to you ready to use. When you hire someone, you're paying for more than just the time spent shooting. There is a lot of pre- and post- production time that goes into every job you never see.

I know a painter who likes to shoot his own work. He is very methodical and he likes to control all of it. But unless you’re the kind of artist that enjoys having happy little mistakes appear in your work, you’re going to have real problems shooting your art. Mistakes, at best, cost time and can be expensive. Why not let someone else have the responsibility for the accuracy of the job?

I know. I’m biased, but I find that most artists really worry over photographing their work. Let’s face it, shooting art isn’t that hard, but having someone else do it for you can really ease a lot of your tension and save you a lot of time.

Tom Van Eynde is a Chicago-based photographer specializing in visual art documentation.