American painter Craig Forrest is a North Carolina "rural realist." Using photographs as source material, he creates his representational paintings using the methods of pencil drawing, watercolor, drybrush, and, sometimes, egg tempera (dry pigments mixed with distilled water and egg yolk). Forrest now also prints and sells digital reproductions of his original paintings. Read on for the details of how he does this.
-- Harald Johnson, 25 Feb. 2003
Q: You describe yourself as a "Rural Realist" who "roams the western North Carolina mountains with camera in hand for the creative
process...." What does that mean and how does that actually work?
A: I work in a realist style from photographs. Early on, when I first
started seriously painting, I would grab my camera, hop in my Jeep, and
ride the back roads here near Cullowhee seeking out subject matter for
paintings. If you want to see rural, come to Cullowhee. It was hit and
miss. I did stumble across some great subjects, and they produced what I
feel were some fine paintings. I also had a lot of failures. I would
take pictures of a lot of subjects that when I got the film processed
simply didn't make the cut. I feel that some of my best work came about
when I would least expect it. I might be driving to a particular place
with a particular subject in mind when I would come across something
totally different. I just know when something is right and will work
for a painting.
The funny thing is, I'm not a photographer! Sure, I've made some nice
photographs, and I feel I have a good understanding of photography. I
keep up as best I can with new trends and developments in photography,
but I'm more interested in what it can do for me as a painter than as
an end result itself. If you were to look at some of the resource
photographs I have used for my paintings you would probably be quite
puzzled. They simply don't look at all like the finished painting in
many cases. Also they sometimes exhibit awful composition. I use my
photographs as sketches. I change things around combining elements from
different photos and locations. As I say on my website, this to me is
what separates a painting from a copy of a photograph.
"...this to me is
what separates
a painting from a copy of a photograph."
I previously used a Nikon FM SLR for my reference photos. It did a
great job, but of course, I had to wait to get the film processed before
I could tell exactly what I had. Now, I'm using a Nikon 995 digital
camera, and it sure is nice to be able to look at the LCD almost
immediately to see what I have to work with. I can go back to my studio
and start working on a painting the same day. Also, I can use Adobe
Photoshop to combine images for better compositions. I recently did a
commission that was a "House Portrait" of an old house in your home
state. Taking the pictures myself wasn't an option. I had to use my
customer's photos that weren't all that great. I wound up scanning them
into Photoshop and stitching a couple of images together from the
proper angle to get a view of the entire house from a more interesting
perspective.
Q: Tell us about your digital reproductions: What do you call
them? How do you do them? Give us the details: printer, inks, paper, etc. Any changes or upgrades planned?
A: For years I have been asked by friends, collectors, and others about the availability of reproductions of my paintings. It can be quite
expensive to have a painting reproduced using the traditional photo-lithographic
process. Not only is the expense a consideration, the process leaves a
lot to be desired in most instances. Ideally, the artist should be
present during the proofing phase and make suggestions for color
corrections on the spot with the printer face-to-face.
My wife Wanda has Chronic Progressive Multiple Sclerosis. I am her
primary care-giver and traveling to a distant location to work with a
printer is not a possibility. It would present too great a hardship for
both Wanda and myself given our circumstances. Also, to do a
reproduction justice, it would probably require several days of work
with a quality printer.
I call my reproductions "Giclées" because that term has been adopted by
the fine art reproduction community to describe the process. Now, please
realize that I'm talking about art reproductions here, not originals.
All you have to do is go to any trade show, pick up any art publication,
or visit almost any art gallery and a lot of museums in this country
for the proof of this. A lot of people in the digital fine art community don't
like the term. All I can say is, they'd better just get over it. It's
here to stay, and they might as well get used to it.
I've used Macintosh computers since 1986. I'm crazy about
OS X and am doing all I can presently to migrate everything over to it.
I scan my watercolor paintings in sections at 360 dpi on a flatbed
scanner and then stitch the individual scans together manually in
Photoshop to create an image of the entire painting.
I use an Epson 2000P printer, Epson OEM pigmented inks, and Epson's
matte and watercolor papers for my reproductions because of the
advertised/claimed longevity of the printer, inks, and paper used in
combination. I started with an Epson 1270 printer in the spring of 2000
and quickly realized that I would need some profiling software in order
to color match my reproductions to my original paintings. A discount
coupon for Monaco EZcolor was included with the 1270. Incidentally, I
had a serious problem with the dreaded "orange shift" on matte paper
using the 1270 and wound up trading it back to Epson for the 2000P.
The problem I face with profiling for the 2000P is that I feel the need
to edit for daylight color temperatures. The initial profiles from
EZcolor when applied to my 2000P ( with no editing ) work great under
tungsten lighting but exhibit a green color cast when displayed under
daylight or fluorescent light. I don't know about others, but it seems
that the first thing people do when they come to my studio is to take a
reproduction or original over to a window to see it in "the light."
After adjusting for daylight/fluorescent color temperature, the prints
exhibit a red color cast under tungsten light, which I don't find too
objectionable. I find that most people expect tungsten light to
provide a little red color cast.
The green color cast is the result of metamerism, which manifests itself
markedly with the 2000P OEM inks. An interesting thing is the fact that
I can see metamerism exhibited by my original paintings as well, though
not quite to the same degree. I have a good friend who is a
photographer. He made Cibachrome prints from 4x5 transparencies in his home darkroom for
years, and he found himself making similar color
adjustments due to metamerism. He has since donated his wet darkroom
equipment to our local community college and is now totally digital. He
uses the Epson 2200 printer that seems to make a better print than
the 2000P regarding metamerism and resolution, as well. You have to get
sample images of both printers side by side to notice the difference.
Viewing a print in one room and then moving to another room to view the
other, I can't readily tell them apart.
I have considered upgrading to an Epson 7600, but I don't think I can
justify the cost or studio space. When my 2000P prints are framed and
matted they are fairly large. Most of my collectors have limited wall
space, and I question whether or not I have enough of a market for the
larger prints the 7600 is capable of. I think such a market would have
to come from the corporate business community, and right now I don't
have the means or the time to pursue that.
If Epson ever decides to market an upgraded version of their 3000 printer,
I'll probably be one of the first in line to buy it. I can't help but feel that
Epson is ignoring a lot of pent-up demand for a product that can print on 17 x 22" paper and still fit on a desktop.
Q: Isn't scanning original art in pieces tricky? Any tips?
A: Yes. Both tricky and time consuming. I find that manually stitching works best for me due to the fact that
it allows me to have total control over the entire process. I would
like to be able to afford a view camera with a digital back or a large-format flatbed scanner; that would certainly make life a lot simpler. I have contacted several photographers with scanning back cameras but
curiously, most refuse to provide a raw file. They insist on playing
with the image. Unless I decide to reproduce an egg tempera on panel, which won't lay flat on my scanner, I'll probably just continue to scan and stitch.
I have heard of some people using pro digital SLR cameras to take
photos of paintings in sections and then stitching them together in
much the same fashion as I do. That might be a possibility for me in
the future.
I now find myself squaring up watercolors to accommodate them on my
scanner. If necessary, squared strips of paper can be taped to a
painting to provide the proper registration of the painting to the
scanner bed. My first attempts were disasters. I wasn't allowing for
the distortion created by the raised edge of the scanner. I got some
terrific advice and assistance from a lot of different folks on the old
Epson Leben discussion list who had been doing stitching for some time and gradually was
able to master the process.
Q: What are the most important challenges faced and lessons learned about making your own digital prints?
A: When I first toyed with the idea of reproducing my watercolors with an inkjet printer, I was concerned most about resolution. I quickly came
to realize that resolution was not the problem--color matching was. It
soon became evident that in order to be able to do the best job of
color matching my reproductions to the original paintings, I would have
to learn about color management and be able to create my own custom
profiles. I use Monaco EZcolor because it is affordable, easy to use,
and easy to understand. With the arrival of Photoshop 6.0, I was able to
soft proof, and that made a huge difference in my success rate. As I
said above, I'm presently in the process of migrating to Mac OS X. I can
see the handwriting on the wall so to speak. I've heard there is a
probability that the next version of Photoshop will be OS X only for
the Mac. I'm trying to stay current if I can.
Q: Do you sign and number your prints? Any comments on the ongoing debate about that?
A: At present, I am only doing limited editions, and I limit the editions to 400.
Limited editions are almost always expected by the collector community
when you are talking about doing reproductions of original paintings.
Numbering originated in the days when artists used stone lithographic
and intaglio methods of producing prints. Limited edition
photo-lithographs seemed to really come into prominence during the late
'70s and early '80s. As things progressed, limited editions came to be
the accepted norm, and the collecting public came to want it. Some
prominent artists are now doing "timed releases." They advertise the
availability of reproductions that will no longer be available from
their publishers after a certain date. In other words, they take orders
in advance and produce reproductions in sufficient quantities to meet
the orders they receive before a given date. After that date, there
are no more reproductions printed. These can number into the
thousands depending on the popularity of the artist.
I am now considering limiting editions to much lower numbers in the
future due to concerns I have about equipment failure. At present, my
editions are of necessity tied to the 2000P printer as I, of course, want
each print to be the same as the previous one. I think that it might be
smart to limit my editions to smaller numbers. I
could go ahead and make a full run of prints to guard against the
possibility of not being able to continue to print reproductions of the same quality due to unforeseen circumstances. So far, I have been very lucky in that I haven't noticed any differences in my
individual prints due to changing ink cartridges or printer drift.
Most states now have laws governing limited editions. North Carolina
needs to address its current code to take into account the new digital
processes.
Q: I see that you sell your prints online with PayPal. Has that been a positive experience for you? Any other marketing successes you've had with either your originals or your reproductions?
A: I have been very pleased with PayPal. I would highly recommend the company to anyone in a similar situation to mine. What I needed was an
easy way to offer the public a way to securely make purchases of
reproductions on my website. So far PayPal has met all of my
expectations in a most satisfactory manner. PayPal provides the HTML
code needed to set up my web pages, and they are prompt in crediting my
business checking account electronically after a sale.
My website has not generated a huge number of direct sales but has
done a fine job of promoting me and my work. It's really sort of hard
to say just what the website has done for me as far as total sales of
original paintings and reproductions. It is almost a requirement these
days to be able to point collectors to a website where they can view
examples of your art. The site can do a lot in terms of advertising,
not only by itself but also through links to other sites. I've made
quite a few sales and earned several nice commissions through these
links.
I have had success and failure with art galleries as I'm sure many
other artists have. My first one-man show at a local gallery here sold
out, and that was a great confidence builder. The next year, I had the
bright idea of doing a show at the same gallery with a coastal North
Carolina theme. (I'm 350 miles but originally from the coast.)
My wife and I made an extensive trip to the North Carolina coast where
I took photographs for reference for paintings. When the show opened, I
could hardly give them away. People in the mountains of western North
Carolina aren't interested in buying coastal images. I was fortunate
later to be invited to have a one-man show at the North Carolina
Department of Cultural Resources. People in Raleigh are much more
interested in coastal subjects. All of the coastal works sold.
My experience with art galleries has been trying at best. In almost
every case, I have had great initial success only to have the gallery
change to a director who didn't appreciate my work (the kiss of death),
or the gallery went out of business for any number of reasons. At
present, I don't have a gallery relationship primarily due to the fact
that my wife's health has worsened recently, and I simply don't have as
much time to paint and promote myself.
"Can you imagine what Leonardo da Vinci could have done
with an Epson printer and Photoshop?"
Q: I notice that you only offer seven reproduction prints from the many originals you have. How is that determined?
A: This is an easy question. I'm happy to be able to say that most of my originals are sold and in collections scattered far and wide. It would
be very difficult for me to be able to procure, scan, and reproduce them. I have been able to borrow a few from local collectors, but the majority are in the collections of individuals and
corporations too distant to make obtaining them feasible. I sure do
wish I could have had this reproduction capability available to me 20
years ago. Can you imagine what Leonardo da Vinci could have done with
an Epson printer and Photoshop?
Q: Tell us if and how you frame your prints. Also, do you
include a "Certificate of Authenticity" with them?
A: I do all of my own framing. I can't afford to have it done by others, plus I enjoy doing it. I use both commercial mouldings and produce my
own hardwood mouldings in my woodworking shop. I have a 3-hp
industrial shaper with a power feeder that shapes solid oak mouldings
in one pass. Raw kiln-dried oak is purchased locally that has been
rough-planed on two sides and jointed on one. I then fine-plane, rip,
shape, and finish it. I enjoy woodworking and build furniture as a
hobby. I designed and built a cabinet for my studio (see photo below) that has flat file
drawers for storage and a place for my mat cutter on top.
Conservation framing has become an area of concern for me due to some
problems I have seen crop up in the past as a result of improper
framing. I use acid-free and archival materials for all of my framing.
It may not be as necessary for some things, but I'd hate to one day
reach for a non-archival mat board or backing board for one of my
original watercolors. That's why I don't have any non-archival board in
my studio.
I do furnish a Certificate of Authenticity with each of my
reproductions. A sample of the information I provide is included on the
Technical Page of my website. The information provided reflects the
disclosures required by North Carolina statute.
Q: You seem to have a knack for getting publicity. How has that helped, and do you have any advice for others artists wanting to do the same thing?
A: I've been doing this for a while now. I've been able to make a lot of contacts over the years, and I would like to think that the quality of my work has helped.
As for advice to other artists, all I can say is: do the best work you
are capable of, and then try to make as many contacts as you can. Create
a brochure, build a website, seek out galleries, enter competitions,
and conduct yourself as a professional.
Q: Any final words of advice for those who may be traditional
artists and who want to take the step to digital reproductions?
A: I think that most traditional painters should probably have their work reproduced by professional printmakers. Their time would in most cases be
better spent producing original art rather than reproductions. There
is quite a learning curve, and the expense in terms of time, equipment,
and media is not inconsequential.
Any artist considering reproducing their work should do as much
research into all of the methods as possible, whether they plan
to do it themselves or not. There are a lot of mistakes that can be
prevented through acquiring some knowledge.
Having said all that, I would be the first to encourage any artist with the
strong desire to create their own reproductions to go for it. Just
realize that as with most things, you'll only get out of it what you are
willing to put into it.
(All images are copyright © 1999-2002 by Craig Forrest. All rights reserved.)
CONTACT INFO:
Craig Forrest
P.O. Box 3196
Cullowhee, NC 28723 USA
sleepyhollo1@earthlink.net
www.sleepyhollowstudio.net
