OT/General DollShe going official with their casting service!

i've just read it, not bad at all, it certainly IS offering quite a lot for the money.
They're guarentees seem good as well.

 

That's very interesting! I like the low order quantities, and the prices are great.

What is "basic aeathe"??

 

I think that means basic aesthetics (sanding seamlines, cleaning up casting residue or msc, normal maintenance stuff everyone does for their dolls)

 

Ah OK, thank you!!

 

I just asked what basic aeathe is on the sit Q&A. I feel like a damn fool now.

These guys seem very trust worthy and professional about their reproduction service. I haven't seen anyone explain their processes and conditions this well before. What makes me more convinced to use them instead of hand casting is that they seem to have a way to filter and mix urethane in a way that there's little to no variations in the skin colour.
I'm really determined to reproduce my dolly but I wouldn't know how to go about finding the funds. v_v;

 

Yeah...the min-order numbers are reasonable, but getting up 1k~2kUSD is still pretty hard. Maybe solve it by doing a pre-order sale of dolls? But how many people are planning to sell dolls as opposed to just make enough for themselves...

 

Sounds far fetched but I'd like to do a bit of both. I'd like to trade them for other people's aswell. Only dreaming though. ^^;

 

Even if you're only casting for yourself and want 10-20 dolls that is still a saving per unit compared to buying 10-20 dolls at full price. Or say you ordered 20 and kept 10 for yourself, if the price you set for the "retail" dolls are a little higher you can still recoup the production costs for all 20 units.

 

As a doll maker, I would much rather hand cast in my own molds:
1. Practice makes perfect. Shopping it out doesn't help my skill level.
2. Doll making is a multi-media art form. Hand casting is part of the process.
3. (Almost) immediate feedback. Pour in the morning, demold in the afternoon.
4. Modifications are easy. Need to redo just the knee joints? That's all you have to do.
5. Nothing, not the original sculpt, nor the finished BJDS, gets lost in the mail.
6. Large chunk of capital not needed all at once, if you do it yourself.
7. Capital outlay for rubber and resin is relatively small, and my own labor is free.

I was trying to get at least ten reasons why hand casting your own work is a better idea than shopping it out, but I've run out of steam. Can you add to this list to make ten?

 

I was more excited to see this news than I was about the rest of the Dollshe site!

I agree with you on those reasons, KW, but for me the primary consideration is time and space. I already have two jobs, I have a wee little apartment with no workspace that would allow me to do casting, and even after twenty years I don't think my relationship could survive that kind of mess!

 

So I guess you can start the list of ten reasons why shopping out the casting is a good idea?

 

I'm not certain that I will use the service, but it does have a lot going for it.

reasons for shopping out:

1. no learning curve: it does away with the unpredictable costs in time and money
2. consistent results: as the site says, parts from different batches will be interchangeable
3. reduces cost: it will cost cheaper to cast than if each artist did it individually
3a. it also costs the entire community less money: because instead of each artist needing to buy a pressure pot, tools and colorants, etc etc, all that is taken care of by dollshe.
4. safety assurance: well, I assume anyway that since they're producing in such great numbers, they will better equip themselves with safety measures than some poor casting amateur. And of course, shopping out means there's no personal risk to the artist.
5. interchangeability with OTHER artists: your doll, and another artist's doll, will match colors. This is not a small thing!
6. lowers the difficulty threshold to create a doll: this can impart greater energy in the artist communities.
7. makes it possible to sell at lower prices to recoup your own costs: twigling covered this already
8. it promotes trust in the community:
8a. because Dollshe asks for production photos to prove sculpt is original
8b. because artists can show emails from Dollshe proving that production is in progress, and they're planning to run off with the buyers' money...or something.

There is a con I can see. The service can become so popular that any requests for information about casting is looked on with suspicion, unless the artist proffer explicit proof like "I want to do this special joint system that is not possible to cast by the Dollshe process" or "I only want to cast 5."

BUT, it may be that learning costs to cast 5 is more expensive than sending to dollshe to cast 10...etc etc

But you can ruminate about whether a service is a good one, but you cannot really persuade people to "use this good service...but use it only a little bit" Above imagined scenario will happen or it will not happen, I don't think you can *stop* it from happening. XD;

 

Three more reasons

8. Because your a glutton for punishment but you know that's how you learn!
9. Total control.
10. Satisfaction of a job well done.

 

I'd like to qualify my last post with some thoughts that occurred to me subsequently:

I was very excited about different artists having same colored parts (interchangeability, reason #5), and I still am. But I'd forgotten that Dollshe reacted to his last plagiarist by cutting off his own nose to spite his enemies (what is the right phrase for this?). The result was interesting, but indubitably bizarre.

Now, it looks like Dollshe has taken on the responsibility, whether because of his abhorrence for plagiarism or for the very savvy reason of reassuring his clients that their originals would be safe at Dollshe --- whatever the reason is, it looks like Dollshe wants to make absolutely sure that everything that passes through his shop is 100% original work.

It would be very interesting to see how he handles some of the problems interchangeability will surely bring. Would he reject an extremely modded part, modded so much that if it were not for the artist-modder's photographs of documentation, no one would ever guess this? Would he reject a head designed explicitly to fit a Volks body (or another commercial or private artist's body)? What's more, there will certainly exist people who disagree with Dollshe's judgment. When a dust-up happens over one of the parts he's cast, will he again react like he did last...?

Dollshe can only avoid these conflicts by 1) remaining a very, very small operation, which appears to be his plan, and 2) if only particular kinds of artists use his service --- artists who, because of some quality of their sculpts, will never have parts co-opted by anyone else. The quality can be many things, mind you it can mean ugly, it can mean unusual, it can also just mean the artist is working in a size that's not popular in the hobby.

 

Time is a major factor for me too. I work two jobs and have kids (could be looked at as a third job) Having professionals do the casting would allow me more time to sculpt!!!

On the other hand there are some very good reasons for doing it myself too. I think the biggest for is a sense of "this doll is completely mine". Will I lose that with someone else casting her?

I am definitely considering this though.

 

i think its pretty good that they offer it. thou i wont be using it.
mostly so i can fix all the faults directly and that i only want one.. XD
oh and that im thinking of doing partly coloured (arms and legs i either lilac or black/gray)

 

I hope this works out for all involved. I too see issues with it.

For example, I cannot for the life of me do the "WIP" thing. I have nothing but respect and admiration for those who do, and in fact I have been trying just so I could take more of an active role in this forum, but when I am creating I go into a private little world and emerge when I am done, and I am not alone in this, off the top of my head I can think of a lot of artists, including some very well known ones, who also work this way and who are uncomfortable even talking about a piece until it is done, or at least at the prototype stage. And yes it can be done very specifically for a lesson plan, but that is a whole other animal, and a totally different mind set.

Others are just very guarded about their process and for good reason. I was exchanging "war stories" just two evenings ago with a working artist and we both had stories of being completely ripped off by major companies. Anyone who has ever attended a NIADA conference will tell you the same. So whether it is just part of how we work, or whether it is wariness, there are a great many people who either will not or cannot do the WIP thing.

Not to mention that being asked for it puts the artist in the position of dealing with someone they have to trust who clearly does not trust them. The time honored disclaimer that it is your original work is more than sufficient under the law to "hold harmless" someone who reproduces your work, whether that is Kinko's or a mold maker.

As to whether or not to use a service at all, its horses for courses. If you know in advance that you only want a short run, or if you need or want the experience of making your own molds you should do that. If on the other hand you are at a stage in your life or career where it just makes more sense in terms of time, costs, run size, space, allergies or whatever it is, then its wonderful to have the option.

Certainly though I would suggest that at the very least you have a "waste mold" in your possession, so that you can minimize any dreadful losses that might occur. Its never a good idea to put yourself in a position where bringing someone else into your process can cause you irreparable harm.

Just my 2c from the peanut gallery!

 

I didn't get the impression from Dollshe's announcement that they are going to require WIP pictures of every step. I would imagine that it will be enough to show a few photos of what is recognizably that doll under construction. Regarding the lack of trust, that's an interesting point, but I bet Dollshe is requiring proof of ownership as a "CYA" measure, to prevent just the scenario penguu mentions. And if you think about it, it's a protection for the artist as well.

 

As I'm on a very tight budget (I only get about £150 a month and half of that goes to my boyfriend/art supplies) I think I'll go for learning how to hand cast my dolls first and then probably consider the possibility of using Dollshe if I can get the cash together. The urethane filtering thing is what I'm interested in. Does anyone know anything about this process? This is the strongest point for me and it's where I think the line is between professional casting and homemade. If I can figure out a way to get a uniform colour each time with little to no variation I might just stick to homemade.

The interchangeability of parts is important for both me and a potential customer. Bad things happen; it'll get chewed up by pet or a finger might fall off. You don't want to have the idea that it's an expensive one-off in the back of your head.

In regards to trusting Dollshe;

They seem to be morally sound. They understand the problem with trying to find a safe business partner and the main sculptor seems to have had bad experiences with plagiarism. I think I'll look into copy writing anyway.

 

For a very nice perspective about making molds, please read this blog entry from Catrina, our patron, here at The Joint.

Molding OCD. How molding has changed my perspective.

Yes, mold making is a challenge, and it is a doll maker's craft skill. It is a part of making your own dolls. My feeling about a casting service is that when your dolls get good enough, they will come looking for you, offering to cast your dolls for you, with all the proper business contracts in hand, and so forth. Until then, work diligently at perfecting your art and your craft.

 

You're absolutely right about a casting service having no reason to come looking for you! I was basing discovery of your dolls on what I had recently read on K. Lasher's BJD site. On her ABOUT page she tells a story about how her dolls were spotted by an artist representative, not a casting service. My bad.

 

A little late to the party, but I think this is fabulous news. I love Dollshe's color line, they're obviously committed to quality, and the low minimum order means it's less of an initial investment (or fewer dolls to pre-sell, if you go that route.)

I do enjoy mold design, but casting? I kind of hate it. My respirator doesn't seal properly, my exhaust system is a box fan, I can't cast in summer because of the humidity, I can't cast in winter because it's freezing cold, I hate wasting resin because of bubbles, but I hate the idea of using a pressure pot even more... all in all, I'd much rather be sculpting.

 

Exactly, Morgan!!

I have learned to mold and cast for the sake of making dolls, but the quality I can produce is not as good as what someone like Dollshe can do. Plus, if I commit to casting, then it is a lot harder for me to find the time to sculpt and make new things, I have loads of ideas that I want to try out, and bringing them to life takes time in itself. I find molding to be tedious and time consuming, and expensive, and casting can be bitterly frustrating with all the little things that can and do go wrong.


That said, I have worked with other "casting professionals" before and been bitterly disappointed with their work, but I know Dollshe Craft has high standards and understands how dolls are made.

 

wow, this looked fantastic to me until 5 minutes ago (was actually counting out my money too!!)

then I realised that they were connected to dollstown :[

Anyone actually click on their "Why Original Handcrafted dolls?" link in the banner? The same close-minded rant can be found on Dollstown, here (look at the "Regarding the use of computer sculpture for doll fabrication" heading): http://dollstown.com/zboard/view.php?id=info&no=21
-Ugh, it sounds like a serious case of someone being bitter towards all technology because they can't understand how to turn on their new apple mac.

What are they going to do when someones WIP pictures have some form of digital sculpting?

There comes no profit to the community when everyone starts dealing with a casting company that does not support any evolution or change within the community. There is being traditional, which is fine, but there is also being stubborn to the point of being just plain stupid.

-Looks like i'm out to find another caster

 

One of the reasons I love Dollshe and Dollstown is because of that "rant." I am more than happy to give my money to an artist who believes that "computer-crafted dolls cannot compare with handcrafted originals when it comes to attention and effort." I don't find anything stubborn or stupid about that assertion, nor do I believe that these artists are resistant to technology out of bitterness. Bad experiences with copying aside, these are people who worked with their hands for thousands of hours to create the dolls we love and I think they should take great pride in that fact. I appreciate that they have outrageously high standards because I think too many doll companies take shortcuts with the sculpting aspect in order to stay profitable and their doll engineering and proportions are crap as a result. For Dollshe to fund his quirky sculpting style with a side business doing casting for other sculptors is a brilliant way to stay in the business full time when his dolls aren't selling like hotcakes anymore.

 

Damaged Aesthetics: They actually do address the question of digital WIPs:
Manufacturers that produce computer sculpture dolls should at least reveal the original oil clay sculpts they used for scanning as well as the initial computer data of these sculpts. To play by the book, an oil clay sculpt should be created first and then 3-D scanned, but even if a 3-D model of a doll is created digitally, an initial rendering is necessary.

I do think they're overestimating the degree to which working digitally matters. Symmetry aside, computer modeling isn't easy... in some ways, it's harder than working with clay. And I really doubt that anyone is using 3D scanning and printing technology to pirate dolls. It's easier and cheaper to just make a silicone mold.

 

Although it wasn't a doll, but a model kit, I did have one of my sculpts pirated by a Chinese company. They turned my sculpted into a vinyl toy without my permission. The finished product was a larger size then mine, but every curve and shape was identical. I wouldn't be surprised if the same thing has happened with dolls.

 

Yeah, if I was pirating something like bjds (especially given the joint systems), I would definately just cast again, not bother with scanning in 3D . Their whole demonising dijital art thing just really, really irks me

...But I'm sure their casting is fantastic :rolleyes:

 

I don't get why anyone would make an original doll in clay, then digitally scan it, alter it virtually and then 3D print to mold and cast??? Surely there are those who start out with a digital 3D file and work only from that to eventually end up with a 3D print, too. It's Dollshe's decision ofcourse, but if someone wanted them to reproduce a doll they had sculpted virtually and then 3D printed, it shouldn't matter as long as the work is original.

Then again, Dollshe Craft didn't want any of his sculpts shown in Armeleia's "Face+Up" picture book, because some of the other companies in the book used digital means to produce some of their sculpts...




I'm now looking at the new AngelsDoll girl body (http://angelsdoll.net/shop/step1.php?number=660) and thinking that there is something 'off' about it, it's interesting in some ways, and the proportions are certainly realistic, but the joints seem extraordinarily mechanical and strongly contrasted to the shape of the body. The body itself looks smooth only when standing straight up and down, as if it was sculpted in one piece and then cut up. With the digital render type minimee service that Angelsdoll offers, I suspect this body was created via digital means and it really shows. To me all their other bodies look more like they where conceived 'naturally' and the 3D thing seems to be something new they are trying, and perhaps not succeeding very well at just yet? With what I mentioned above in relation to Dollshe, there must be other companies who use these methods to design dolls, but I don't think I've come across any that have stood out in a noticeable way. I don't care whether dolls are made by hand or by computer as long as it is done well, so hopefully this is not the best we can hope to get in the way of digital doll design?

What other doll companies do we think might use 3D to make their sculpts? Iplehouse, perhaps??? Fairyland?

 

"I don't get why anyone would make an original doll in clay, then digitally scan it, alter it virtually and then 3D print to mold and cast??? "

^ I actually thing this technique is used much more then you would think. Especially when a 3D printer is nearby.

I was in a class called "Virtual to Real : Rapid Prototyping" and we had many business reps and watched a lot of videos where the originals were hand-crafted. One company scanned in guitars and had machines replicate the designs with a CNC machine. The teacher constantly encouraged us to scan in sculptures to mess with on the computer. (Though our 3d scanner was so bad, no one ever wanted to)

It's a great idea if you have the tools, but no normal person has a 3d scanner, printer and CNC machine in their basement. Imagine making a body in clay, scanning it in, and doing the joints on the computer! You could save different versions of the joints, and you would never waste a bunch of time repairing failed joint attempts.

I would love to be able to take one of my face sculpts and tweak it, while having the safety of an undo button at the ready.

And, I think Iplehouse is definitely using 3d modeling, the sculpts are just too perfect. I'm tempted to start messing with photoshop to see if some dolls really are perfectly symmetrical. I also think B&G might be, and Impldoll.

ETA- And maybe 5stardoll.

 

Okay that sounds like it could be useful if one has access to all the equipment, and knows how to use the software etc, I suppose. Being able to "save" a sculpt before trying several different approaches would definitely be handy

 

Before there were electronic binary digital computer machines, sculptors used proportional dividers, to enlarge, reduce, and copy sculpture. Wooden frames with measurement markings in them were also used. Later, an enlarging/reducing pointing machine was used which had a fixed fulcrum, and a long bar, with pointers on it. All of these are still a manual operation, using a system of pointing. The sculpture to be enlarged/reduced/copied has points marked on it. Those points are transferred to the copy, using the wooden frame, or the pointing machine. Clay is then built up to the tip pointer on the copy. Sculptors have been doing this type of enlarging/reducing/copying of sculpture for a long time.

I think that just about anyone can learn to do this. The principle is the same as "scaling-up" or 'gridding-up" in 2D drawing. You add the third dimension with the pointed rod or stick. Start with a simple shape. If it is a maquette, and you want to enlarge it, put a small wooden frame around it. Make a large wooden frame proportionately larger, with the same number of measurements as the small one, except proportionately larger. A small frame, 12X12X12 inches with one inch markings, would be used for a small maquette. To enlarge it to twice the size, a 24x24x24 inch frame would be built, with two inch markings. The pointers also have markings on them, in the same ratio as the frames. A point on the small maquette at 6 vertical, 6 horizontal, and 3 inches on the pointer stick, is built up on the larger frame at 12 vertical, 12 horizontal, 6 inches on the pointer stick. In practice, the clay is built up to just underneath the tip of the pointer, and a small stick is stuck in at that point, which touches the tip of the pointer.

There is an illustration of such enlarging frames on page 274 of The Materials And Methods Of Sculpture by Jack C. Rich (ISBN: 0486257428). It is also explained with some illustrations on pages 82-85 of The Encyclopedia Of Sculpture Techniques by John Mills (ISBN: 0823016099). Chapter 12, (starting on page 97) of Modelling And Sculpting Animals by Edouard Lanteri (ISBN: 0486250075) discusses The Pointing using frames.These techniques are not new, and were part of the standard training of sculptors in days past. These are the techniques taught to apprentice sculptors.

Making copies by molding and casting existing sculpture has been going on forever. There are probably more copies of copies of copies of Frederick Remington's sculptures than any other sculptures on the face of the earth. Each time a copy is made of a copy, it becomes a little less crisp. There are some foundries that make their living off of copying copies of copies of copies of Frederick Remington bronzes. People still buy them. I've seen side-by-side photographs of an original Remington, and an eighth generation copy, and the difference really makes you wonder why people still buy them?

I guess the point is, this debate about originals, and copies has been going on for a long time. The computer is just another machine. Each evolution of copying machines makes the process of copying a little bit easier than the previous method. Desktop computers now have more computing power than mainframes did, and as a result, anyone with a desktop computer, and a little technical savvy, has the ability to do what only mainframes did before.

3D printers are now open-source projects that can now be put together by the home computer hobbyist, using standard hardware store parts, and some PCBs. Once it has been put together to a certain point, it can start making its own parts. They no longer cost thousands of dollars to make. More along the lines of a few hundred dollars, or the cost of a fancy company 60cm BJD.

The debate of whether a sculpture that is machine-made or hand-sculpted is real sculpture is an old one. Does anyone remember the story of Brâncuşi's Bird In Space bronze being held at US customs because the customs people didn't recognize it as a work-of-art-sculpture, and wanted to charge duty on it as a manufactured machine-made item?

Sculptors have always needed a lot of technical knowledge to do what they do. Is the technical knowledge needed to know how to construct a beautiful wire frame figure on the computer, any less than the technical knowledge needed to know how to design and construct an armature from wood and rebar? Is the technical knowledge needed to know how to sculpt beautiful surface anatomy using 3D modeling software, any less than the technical knowledge needed to know how to apply slabs, and balls of clay to a rough sculpt, to make the beautiful surface anatomy of a sculpture?

The ethics of copying has always been debated in the art world. Legal copies and illegal copies have always existed side-by-side. Sometimes, only experts can tell them apart. Works of art are stolen! Why? So that The stolen Work Of Art can be sold to some unscrupulous collector? Nope. So that copies of the stolen work-of-art can be made and sold to unscrupulous collectors. Anything that can be made by molding, can be copied. If you can mold it, so can someone else. If you can cast it, so can someone else. If you can make a holographic identification sticker for authentication purposes, so can someone else.

When I was in college, a college gallery show (c.1977) of computer art was taken down because the college didn't consider computer art as Art (note the capitalized A in Art). Has that attitude changed yet? Is computer art, Art? Are the aesthetics of computer art, as good or better than the aesthetics of hand-made Art, or is only hand-made Art, real Art?

The Joint's rules state that a BJD presented on this forum must be an original work, and that copies are grounds for removal from the forum. Can a computer-generated sculpt be considered original? Maybe this only applies to copies molded from another person's sculpt? Is a modified cast of my own sculpt still an original? Must a doll be strung with elastic to be considered a real BJD, or are sliding and hinged joints that are not strung with elastic, okay? How about spring-tensioned joints? How about mechanical joints? Can the joints be mechanically hinged, or must they be ball-joints? Can a leg for a BJD be sculpted on the computer and 3D-printed, or must it be sculpted in clay, and eye-balled with the other leg, for symmetry to be considered a real original BJD leg? :confused:

 

3D is just a different tool. Some things it makes easier, some things much harder. Multiple saves and symmetry are mostly what it makes easier - all of the rest of it - sculpting and shaping and whatnot is just as much of a skill as sculpting in clay. I work in both - I love both, for different reasons.

I'm strongly considering redoing my doll in 3D and having her 3D printed. There are just some elements that are a HUGE PAIN to do in clay (like making locks/stops on the inside face of a joint - how the heck do you sculpt something you can't see?) that are relatively easy to do in 3D, that are holding me back. I don't like feeling held back as an artist. I like being able to do -art-, not banging my head against a brick wall. If 3D means I can get the precision I want while still being able to do the pretty flowy curvy butt dimples parts, then, well... that's really the way to go, for me.

The artistic parts of the process, the aesthetics and adjustments are just as real in 3D as in clay. Much of what I have learned from doing a sculpt in clay transfers quite well to 3D. It's just a different set of tools and either way it requires a lot of artistic and technical skill. You're still creating something from scratch, pushing around pieces of it, adding new parts, refining and tweaking over and over... it really isn't very different, even once you get down to the real sculpting process. Fixing a little bump in polygons is not too different than fixing one in clay, the way you turn it over looking at it from different angles - carve off a little from one angle, turn it another way, carve off a bit more, etc.,

Either way - clay or 3D, you can end up with a crap result, or a great one. You can get something that ends up quite mechanical and stiff looking, or something that flows beautifully and is graceful and very human. It's all about the individual artist's skill and attention to detail. If you don't see the doll's soul in the finished result, that's not the fault of the medium but the artist. I daresay a lot of the dolls from major companies that are quite popular were made originally (or at least partially) in 3D, especially the ones with quite complicated jointing systems that require exact precision. They just don't go "Hey look at our WIP pics in Maya!" so you don't know it. Like Renzi, I'm lookin' at you, Iplehouse!

I think the most telling bit in that Dollstown speech is toward the end: "It is time that people consider which holds greater value: a doll that undergoes a long series of sculpting, alterations, and tweaking, all by hand..." Yep, that's what I'm doing. Just in 3D.

Also, pretty much everything kwmelvin said.

When it comes time, I'll be learning to cast and stuff myself. It is very cool that there are companies doing it, but I would be all ACK to have my sculpt taken out of my control, even if it's to reproduce it. I know I'll have false starts and stupid bits and mess up a lot, but I like learning new things. Molding and casting sounds like fun to learn, even if it is a bit scary.

 

I was just reading twigling's workshop notes[1] about joints, and in it, she talks about working 10-12 hours each day to cast dolls, and how she got sick of it after a while (see page 8 of her notes).

Having to fill pre-orders for dolls, but first learn molding and casting to do it, would seem to take all the fun out of it, and I'd imagine that the stress level is insane when something goes wrong?

So it is probably a good idea to make some molds and do some casting for yourself first, and get the basic process knocked out, before taking any pre-orders for dolls?

I am making my doll for myself, so I don't anticipate any stress when making my molds and doing castings. Since I have a very low stress threshold, having to learn molding and casting to fill orders for dolls that have already been paid for, would probably kill me.

I do have a lot of admiration for those people who thrive and prosper in high stress situations. Of course, I always envy what I can't have myself.

[1] http://users.on.net/~batfrogklan/LIMBS/workshop_notes.pdf

 

Oh yes - definitely will be figuring out all the details before doing any orders. I don't plan on doing any preorders - just regular orders once the fiddly bits are worked out. Any imperfect practice dolls, I'll keep for myself or give to family and friends that won't care so much if there's a tiny speck of dust or a little marbling.

It'll be a while anyway - I'll have to wait till my son is in school full time. I dunno wtf I'll do if we decide to have another kid. Probably go -completely- crazy.

 

It does seem like it comes down to the old argument of painting vs. photography at some point. I think that the defense of handcraft is partly due to the idea that serendipitous accidents and natural asymmetry are more likely to happen in hand work? Obviously, when designing jointing, 3d modelling is an advantage because we're essentially talking about precision machinery in resin. The alternative is to use a machinists lathe like Shinydoll.
I think it's pretty clear that iplehouse uses computers not only because of those crazy joints, but also because the only images one ever sees of their studio consists of a room with celebrity photographs plastered all over the walls and no clay in sight.

 

Interesting suggestion that Iplehouse is 3D modeled. I've been thinking their sculpts are rather stiff, especially the guys-- almost too perfect and symmetrical, to the point that they look... um... lifeless? plasticky? Strange words to critique a doll, LOL. The Iplehouse sculpts are beautiful but they don't look alive to me. Could that be the result of 3D rendering?

Regarding the IH joints also, they are very precise and close-fitting. They don't operate very well, but that's another story!

 

Alewife, this has been my observation also in regards to Iplehouse, the sculpts are very stiff and static (bodies) and sort of plain... like the detail is washed out and softened ~ too perfect and lifeless indeed! And the SID look like they are almost just scaled down from the EID. The faces are all very attractive, and maybe there is some hand-sculpting involved there, but I'm not sure. The joints are rubbish, extremely ugly and quite limited in their function, especially in the EID. We never see any early WIPs from Iple either, always grey-primed perfect surfaces just prior to molding.

 

If they don't look alive, I don't think it'd be because of 3D, but because of a failure of the artist to breathe life into their work. If they look stiff, it's because of stiff sculpting - whether it's done with polys or clay. But those weird elbows - and the knees on dolls like the Fairyland ones with the little slidey-bit... I just don't see those being done in clay. Not getting both sides nicely symmetrical, without driving themselves nuts. Not even in Apoxie.

 

I have an EID girl and I've seen some EID guy heads in person, and they have the same kind of rounded, softened effect. Pretty, but not detailed. The jointing on the EID girl body is odd. For instance, there is a locking shelf on the hip ball, but no corresponding notch in the hip socket for it to lock into. The knee and elbow double joints have separate upper pieces that look like tuning forks, that are supposed to function like peanuts, but they are constantly sliding up into the thigh/upper arm and getting lost.

HystericalParoxysm, I don't know a lot about 3D, but that's what I was wondering. Are they so stiff and symmetrical because the 3D sculptor didn't know how to tweak them, make them more lifelike?

 

Not to derail the current discussion, but I just want to say that I've emailed dollshe with the question about their policy towards 3d programs. Waiting for response.

Carry on, carry on 8D

 

penguu, I think more than derailing, yours would be an attempt to bring the discussion back on track

 

I'm still waiting an answer but...I think...I think the answer may not be good, because in here Dollshe already comes out as very much against 3D digital sculpting. :\

For those interested in digital sculpting, Gnomon has released *tons* of videos, by people who do it *really well* 8D

 

It taks just as much talent to do 3d computer stuff as it does irl.
It's not cheating at all....no more so than using clay as opposed to stone. It's just different.

 

jco, you're preaching to the choir XD;;; I'm all hands for digital sculpting. But tell that to Dollshe XD;

 

Speaking of back on track, Twigling, did Dollshe respond to your inquiry about interior finishing?

 

It can be a matter of the 3D sculptor not knowing how to tweak them - but really, it's not -hard- to tweak the symmetry at all once you get to that point. More likely, I think it's a case of them just not bothering to, or thinking "Symmetry is better than asymmetry." There's lots of "modelling a human head/body" tutorials that do say "Right now that you've used the Symmetry modifier, make sure to tweak the other side a little for asymmetry."

For example: http://www.subdivisionmodeling.com/forums/showthread.php?t=459

Also, partially because I spent about three hours trying to wrap my head around it last night... regarding the stiffness factor that some may find in 3D...

http://www.subdivisionmodeling.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9925&postcount=14

I know it may be confusing if you're not a 3D modeller (and is a WIP model - that's why it's kinda soft and undefined), but basically, just look at the sweeping lines they've shown. Getting a good, beautiful result is all about controlling those lines of flow - that whole thread is 15 pages long, talking about different ways of doing that. It seems very technical (and in one way, it is) but it's also VERY artistic and aesthetics-based. You have to decide exactly where you want those flows to go - studying anatomy so that they flow around muscle groups, don't cause dips where there shouldn't be any, etc., is really important. It's also REALLY easy to get wrong, as a lot of beginner tutorials ignore it or tell how to do it flat out wrong, and it's not easy to fix once you have a model that's done wrong. I think that may be a lot of why some 3D dolls (because the more I look, the more of them I realize are probably done in 3D!) seem stiff and lifeless. The artist doesn't understand the concept of making their model flow along natural lines of anatomy, and so the end result lacks something you can't quite put your finger on. The shapes are basically right, but the "movement" along the surface is wrong.

I believe doing this wrong would definitely show up even in a 3D printed version, because it's all about the mesh topology. Just as a beginning clay artist might create a "stiff" looking sculpture because they don't understand the way the muscles and bones work together.

It just saddens me to see some individuals (not speaking to Alewife or anyone specifically here) seeming to think clay is always better than 3D, when it's just a matter of doing 3D right, and the result can be as good or better (as you have much more control over fine detail and can create better jointing systems). Technology is a wonderous thing - but it's a tool, just like anything else, and can be used well or used poorly. Just depends on the hands and of the artist wielding it. It is certainly as difficult and time-consuming to create a good result though.

 

St. James, they did and they didn't....

There is also the below paragraph on the information page, but I hope they will put up a more detailed photo page to explain any issues. I think I have a grasp of what is needed, but surely there are things I have not thought of that they might point out also. It would suck to have them send your masters back because they aren't "finished" enough.

Also about the resin colours:

 

This makes perfect sense! (even though the flow line tutorial made my head spin, LOL). I can see where if you're an artist trained in the classical media, and used to life studies, you would already have internalized the fact that hardly anything is symmetrical. Whereas if you're a graphically trained artist (I'm just theorizing here), you may not have internalized that idea, so you'd have to make a conscious effort to make your art asymmetrical.

I don't think 3D is inferior to traditional, in the hands of a good artist. Just another tool, as you say. But I wonder (you've started a train of thought) if hand sculpting has the inherent advantage of asymmetry, and that's why it seems more lifelike to Mr. Dollshe and others? I mean that if you're rendering by hand, it's almost impossible to make something perfectly symmetrical.

 

yay, got an answer from dollshe!

 

What a lovely and graceful answer.

I apologize if I came off a bit "rawr!" in previous posts. I tend to tealdeer - but I get passionate when it's something I care about.

 

But Dollmore was accused of recasting the Dollshe body, not scanning it (because there were identical marks and imperfections inside the torsos of both bodies.

However, it's nice to see Mr. Dollshe is not against 3D designs!

 

"If you read the piece on original dolls on our website, you can see that we are of the belief that handcrafted dolls are the product of much greater effort and attention than computer-generated dolls. It's not even a belief per se, but an obvious fact."

Eh, maybe its the laguage barrier, but this still does sound like Mr. Dollshe is against 3D designs

"much greater effort and attention" isn't put into handcrafted BJDs, they just take more time because of the materials :dead

"effort and attention" are dependant on the artist, not the artform/media. Mr. Dollshe is trying to sound nice while still expressing a terribly biased opinion, unfortunately.

 

Well yeah, I think he feels pretty bitter about other company's 3D sculpting and trying to sell those as analog. But it's reassuring that he hasn't let that color his view of 3D sculptors in the larger community. A cynical view of this can be put forward, of course: it certainly benefits his business to accept from as broad a client pool as possible. But really, any day now a master digital sculptor can come along and flood Mr. Dollshe will beautiful feelings, and he'll forget he ever felt this way about the medium. 8D

 

Haha, just give me time.

There's also a great doll already on this site (Pulkidoll, by firefly) that is done in 3D and is gorgeous. I don't think for a minute she spent any less time, effort, and hair-pulling-out than a clay artist on her doll.

 

I should have said, Mr. Dollshe is not against casting 3D designs.

 

I can do 3d modeling and sculpting....I can say that I can SCULPT far faster IRL than on the computer. I know there are those who are opposite of me. To say that it takes less effort to sculpt in the computer... well they OBVIOUSLY never sculpted in the computer beyond using 3d scanners. Their statement gives up the fact that they have only dealt with 3d scanners.