The handcrafted quality, 3D technology, and the future of BJD

I like your concept of hybrid technology. As a traditional-style doll sculptor myself, I'd love a technology that would let me do, for instance, symmetrical joints, or tweaking the same pair of legs for a different torso, etc. My idea of 3D sculpted BJDs has been shaped by dolls like the EIDs, which are a little too smooth and perfect (IMO). It's interesting to hear from you what else is out there and what the possibilities are.

 

Yeah, my ideas were shaped by the (non-existent) sculptural differences between the EID and SID bodies. That's why I was a bit reluctant at first. Don't get me wrong, I love EID, but for me I wouldn't easily buy and SID because it somehow feels like 'cheating'.

Come to think of it, that might be something companies using modern technologies will encounter. I'm sure I'm not the only one whose first response was a bit negative. If a product has an image of not being original or 'true art', that will have an effect on sales. (yup, i'm definitely a glass-half-empty kind of girl )
How long will it take before computer created dolls will become normal?

But it would be fantastic if all companies could use a 3d printer that gave a beautiful endresult. I'm kind of a sucker for niche-dolls (would like to have a bunch of 80 cm guys and girls with average build bodies - that is: men that are not too muscular and women that are a bit full) and this method would mean that creating these dolls would be a bit easier.

On the other hand, Surreality, for the example you used (the fish ears) you don't really need a 3d printer. Once you have a mold of the head, you can simply make a cast and add details, like those ears, and make another mold. Making a cast will take about 45 minutes, another mold 2 days. It's just that silicone is rather costly.

Then again, how affordable is 3d printing?

 

While I have to admit that the idea of handcrafted dolls makes me all warm and squishy inside, I also have to admit that I don't think I'd be able to tell the difference between handcrafted and 3D designed. And I probably wouldn't care, if I liked the sculpt enough. I'm strange like that.

I don't think it will take over the BJD-making industry, not with the pride a lot of companies feel with their own handcrafted dolls, but with 3D designing it really opens the door to more "personalized" scuplts. There are companies out there (not BJD companies) that will take a 3D design and make it into a reality. This is something I'm especially interested in, as many of my characters tend to have very different and/or non-human design, and I would love to see them as BJDs, but companies simply don't make them as they aren't in high demand.

In the end, if 3D designing does take a place in this hobby, I doubt that it will make such huge impact as we think. We will always have those who will remain loyal to handcrafted dolls, and there will be those who will love the 3D designed (and potentially cheaper) sculpts. It's like the love-hate with different companies, like Volks and Luts and Obitsu.

 

Actually, that's something I'd considered as well -- though I think I'd want, if this makes sense, a 'print blank', since the levels of mold-making do have the shrinkage problem. Though if the master from which the dolls would be produced was a first casting, rather than the original 3d print, I think it'd be possible to avoid that problem. Then the hand-sculpted variations could be produced from that first 'level' of masters -- you could just make another 'master' from the 3d print with the hand-made changes and remold and everything would still fit neatly. It's more one of those practical, fussy issues than a matter of possibility I think -- and it's definitely what I'd want to do if I am ever able to pull this off -- but that's probably a little derailing threadwise for me to keep yammering about.

I agree with that on the angle that it'd be the company or original artist doing all the design work there. I was talking more about something more interactive in a sense. What I meant about the printing for fish ears is more, say CompanyX decides to make a line of dolls -- I couldn't recast one of their heads to do the fishears I want on that head. But CompanyX could offer a 'customizing' service of sorts based on this kind of technology, essentially letting customers 'pre-mod' a head virtually, submit it with their order for printing and production for an extra fee. They could reshape a nose or half-close eyes/etc. as they wished, without violating the rights of the company to do it. I see it as something similar to the DIM and Nobility custom sculpt services -- just that it would keep the production in the company's hands, and the 'sculpting' would be the client's virtually submitted work or adaptations.

Costs on 3D printing are still obscene. They're dirt cheap compared to what they were ten years ago, though, and even compared to five years ago. It's definitely something becoming less costly, more prevalent, and more available. There's a company called Shapeways that is almost like a 'brokerage' that will allow artists to upload designs, and they're printed on demand for customers in a variety of materials, and each gets a cut of the proceeds. The output is severely limited, but the possibilities are fairly endless there, as well. Imagine a business model where you could submit, say, the wacky modified ears -- and if the doll company approved the design and you checked off 'OK for resale', you'd get a cut of copies of your designed head that they could sell alongside their own. It's definitely not something I'd expect to see any time soon, but I wouldn't be surprised to see something akin to this in the next decade or so.

The other issue for me is the materials, if something was ever developed that worked sufficiently as a 'final product' from the raw 3d print. If they can come up with something with properties similar to resin, but kinder to the environment and to the people handling it (sanding/handling/etc.) I would have to call that a big plus as well. In addition, there are some things that are downright impossible to make a good mold for that can be printed -- interlinked rings and so on -- that could open up some pretty cool design possibilities. http://www.shapeways.com/shops/bathsheba -- has a great examples that, well, the very idea of trying to make a mold of that makes my eyeballs itch. (Yes, I am a total geek over the possibilities here. )

 

Do you feel that by limiting dolls to only hand sculpted artist dolls that the future of ABJD is also being hindered? Or, will the posting of progress photos and further development of artists talents lead to the advancement of the hobby?

I think if it were limited to only hand sculpted that there would possibly be less people that would make these dolls. Some people just have their own way of doing things artistically.. I am an artist tho not a doll artist.. I know that if someone took away my comfort zone by taking away my chosen mediums and told me to work with something else I would likely just throw in the towel and decide to not use my art for money anymore.. I am sure that the 3D printing as was said isn't any much different.. you still have to make the "design" which is part of the art. I mean it takes away their need to sculpt by hand but they still make the initial design.

Will the open revelation of how a company produces their sculpts influence the way you buy dolls?

no I don't care how its made as long as I like them.

Is this due to the more intimate feeling of seeing the creation of a sculpt, or the knowledge of it's origins?

not really

Should it matter if it was a 3D image or handcrafted so long as the design is original?

it shouldn't matter as long as the design is original.

should 3D creations be held on a different level than handcrafted ones?

well yeah anything made by hand by traditional means is always going to have a bit of an upper hand over technology based art. You never know tho.. Technology based art is becoming more and more excepted.

 

Shrinkage is a problem, yes, although it depends heavily on what kind of silicone and resin you use. The platinum cure don't shrink at all, for instance, but are more expensive.

I don't know, maybe it depends in the batch or how long you let the mold cure, but the molds I made (with moldmax 30) haven't shrunk at all. The clay head cap still fits well on top of the resin head prototype.

I hope that 3d printing becomes available for everyday use soon, though. It's a very cool new technology that will help considerably, I think.

 

It's an interesting thought. If one of the reasons people collect BJDs is because of the hand-sculpted "work of art" aspect, I can see where it would take the gloss off that, if the company is making multiple sizes/versions of the same sculpt.

In my case, it's not so much that I feel Iplehouse is cheating, as that so far I'm not finding their 3D dolls very lively or interesting. But I know I'm in the minority here.

 

I agree with most posters that both require a vast amount of skilled work. I have absolutely no problem with buying 3D sculpts (given originality) as long as the aesthetics appeal to me.

 

Re: Iplehouse, I have to wonder if they chose to keep the look the same from size to size since so many people seemed to think the EID body type was wonderful -- just too big? They do seem to really work to try to please their customers when it comes to the options they make available, so I can empathize with shrinking the 'too big' body down to the size people are asking for, but keeping the look and detail that has proven otherwise popular. It may be what outed them as using the tech, but I don't necessarily think it's that they used it that's at issue -- more that it was somewhat unexpected, and therefore a little confusing.

The other thing that has been going through my head on this subject for a while is this: this is not exactly the realm of 'ancient traditional techniques' territory in many ways. These dolls -- on the whole -- have not been produced for very long. I was around before the resin BJD, apparently, and I'm not that old. The underlying foundations of ball-jointed dolls, often referenced from the older porcelain and wood varieties, is considerably older. My curiosity is this: how many of the porcelain BJD artists had similar objections to these new resin variants? I'd bet there were at least a few. (I keep picturing the porcelain doll-makers saying, "You didn't need to use a kiln, so you didn't have to work for it as much!" instead of "You didn't have to manually slave over the symmetry!" And then the wood carvers saying, "HA! When I was making BJDs, if we shaved off too much, we couldn't just add more clay and make a new mold, no, we had to start carving that hand over from scratch!" to the porcelain doll-makers. ) The BJDs we collect already have some 'new tech' in them in that sense; part of what I find interesting about them is the blend of traditional sculpting techniques with what we have available to us today in terms of materials and styles.

 

What I can't believe is that the news actually shocked anybody. Quel surprise! Quel horror! A blind person with no fingertips could see that SID is a junior Model-EID with revamped elbow & knee joints. Iples did it because the madding crowds love the body, but don't love having to own a 7-pound behemoth. Simple. They still do all their own original artwork, so it doesn't matter if they used a computer for shortcuts.

 

Also, the EID's themselves are quite obviously computer-generated; theyr symmetry is perfect, their joints are for sure computer piece detailed, like those dented parts on the thighs, and, overall, they look to me like a really nice, but very probably, computer generated work. Sounds a bit strange to me that a SID is ''cheating'', and an EID is not ; D

 

As someone who's done a lot of 3D art, and made several clumsy attempts at 3D modeling, I can confirm that it's not as easy as it looks. A sculpt is a sculpt whether it's done by hand or on a computer. Trust me on this one; both require skill, patience and a lot of talent.

Progress is inevitable, and as technology advances, people are going to find easier and more efficient ways to do things. This includes making these dolls we love so well. As owners and collectors, we can either bemoan the onset of mass-produced BJDs (yes, I felt that shudder, thank you) or we can accept it as an inevitable result of their popularity. The emergence of 3D sculpting on computer may well herald the advent of $50 (or even $20) BJDs. Like it or not.

 

Very doubtful. Production, at present, would still have to happen the same way, and a huge portion of the costs come from that, not the method of sculpting.

Think of it in terms of painting -- is an oil painting 'one of a kind' and an acrylic painting 'mass produced'? Nope. Just different mediums -- and it's the same here. There's nothing about 3D sculpting at all that implies mass production in any way, any more than a hand-sculpt does. That's just how the first item, from which the others are produced, is made -- not how each one that is sold to us is made thereafter. That's still precisely the same process for both at this point in time with molds and resin/etc. Plenty of hand-sculpted things have gone on to be mass produced, and plenty of 3d-sculpted things have been made as one of a kind art objects.

Going way back to the post that started this thread, about the 'why won't they share their techniques, and where are the oil clay mockups', I stumbled across this earlier: http://www.pixologic.com/zclassroom/homeroom/tutorial.php?lesson=jeff -- work safe, but a little creepy. No oilclay mockups required. And while the dollmakers using this tech in Asia might not be sharing step by step progress reports on their designs to the satisfaction of some, 3D sculptors have documented the basic process of 3d figure modeling quite clearly for some time now, so hopefully some of the misconceptions about 'how it must be done' might be put to rest.

 

Well, apparently I had a CAD doll and didn't even know it, so there you go. Although now that people mention it, that was probably the thing about the E.I.D. body I couldn't quite put my finger on. I have to say I find imperfect sculpting-by-hand to be more charming.

 

I have to agree! We started learning how to use Adobe CS2 (long time ago) in my ad design class, and it takes a long time to know all the bells and whistles used to create something relatively easy-looking. At the moment, we can't afford a version of CS for home, but we have Photoshop Elements, and I am slowly using my Google search engine to find out how to do and use things, like working with textures.

If companies want to make their lives easier by using things in 3D, I say more power to them. I don't mind if my doll comes from a 2-3 week process, or through a less time-consuming one. Maybe I get my doll faster, or it doesn't cost as much - both a plus for me. After all, someone has to create the design, so it's not entirely an impersonal process. Sure, it'd be nice to know how my doll was made, and all that, but it's not important. To be honest, I never really knew my dolls were created by hand. I thought that, like most things, there are dolls in stock, or they manufacture more.

As much as using 3D =/= mass produced, it's not an impossibility. It might not result in that right away, but it might down the line.

 

No more than any other sculpting method, though, which is an important point. Plenty of things were mass-produced without the aid of computer modeling, so again, the medium itself does not in any way suggest mass production.

There are additional requirements for something that enters a production pipeline, in terms of software as well as in terms of output. You can look at patternmaking software as a parallel here. There are some meant for home production, and there are others that not only make and scale your patterns but provide cutter's templates to manufacturing machinery to cut your fabrics on an assembly line. The closest parallel to that is the actual 3D printing technology, which is presently far more costly than resin casting for reproduction (and, I think, quite possibly slower per piece), which is why I don't foresee this being done any time soon as a production method. It's also a no less viable production method for a traditionally-produced initial sculpt, because those can be digitized, even though 3d scanning is also an impractically costly option at the present time.

 

^This. The production of these dolls is time-consuming, no matter what medium the artist uses. There is also a lot of testing involved, before the final product is ready for sale. I don't think we'll have to worry that BJD's will be mass produced anytime soon.

 

I agree with being a perfectionist. The doll is wonderfully perfect!!! Did you mirror it? Half off-topic, but what software and equipment did you use? I want to learn how to digital sculpt too.
Back on topic, I agree with what many said, every tool has the potential of being misused, just like a knife and help aid the cooking of a great dish or murder someone. But we don't see knifes banned do we? Being prejudiced over technology is silly. Handcrafted or made with the aid of technology, they are all special, why should they be discriminated against? And it is not like clicking on a magic button and boof, out comes a perfect doll. Hard work is needed for both.

 

Hmm...I go by the dolls I like, so finding out they were designed on computer and 3D printed rather than hand-sculpted probably wouldn't put me off the doll entirely. I do find hand-sculpted dolls and the idea of hand-sculpted dolls more charming, but if you think of it in terms of the perfection that customers are demanding these days, of course companies are going to find the computer assisted route a good way to get that symmetry, smoothness and interplay between the way people really move and the joints you can add to a doll to facilitate that.

I kind of like assymetry in my dolls though, (not Picasso style) but I think that is more of a mirror to 'reality' than a perfectly symmetrical computer designed doll. Human beings aren't perfectly symmetrical and I like seeing those little imperfections in people and in dolls. For me, it's those imperfections that make people interesting and alive, and dolls with slight assymetry have that too.

I can roll snakes and snails from Play-Doh and just about use Photoshop so I bow down to anyone who can hand-sculpt a BJD or design one on a computer. Both are valid forms of art.

 

And the proof is that some of the companies that are most successful recently (Iplehouse, Soom) they all use computer generated models; and these models had a great acceptance. In the case of Soom, for example, they use a master 3D model and do the alterations over it (Heliot's hooves, for example, are an absolutely exact replica from Sard's on a smaller scale, and re-shaped later; but if you put one besides the other, you can see every single strand of sculpted hair in the very same position in both). So in the end, it seems that the results were pleasant to people, despite the media used on them.

 

An interesting question and there has been a lot of discussion from both sides. I personally agree with those that say 3d creations would be time consuming and don't see a reason as to why they should be differentiated unless there is a definite evidence of cloning/copying.

Computer aided design is a great tool and could indeed help to offer the customer more choice and variation but there would still be elements of hand crafting to bring it to market. As to myself, I would not be driven either way when choosing my doll, it would simply be the one I could afford and the one I was most attracted to facially etc. I would look for creativity and the "look" whatever method had been used to create it.

 

Oh wow... I didn't realize Soom was using the computer techniques as well. (In a warped way, this makes me love them all the more since I putter with 3D for a living.) It also makes a LOT of sense, considering the remarkable speed of their production schedule. The idea of using a master model and modifying from there makes a lot of sense no matter what the medium used, but it's definitely made easier with 3D tech when speed is a very real factor to contend with. Zbrush is going to be much faster to 'carve' with experimentally, for instance, than clay -- and mistakes easier to adjust if they're caught quickly enough.

Quick edit: It's also worth mentioning that a lot of the details of even the computer-created sculpts are still hand-crafted. All the casting, the faceups, and so on are still done in the same way as the hand-sculpted dolls. (Technically they're still using hands with the computer, but a graphics tablet is a different animal than clay. ) Most of the clothing for this hobby seems to be made by hand (with a sewing machine, but still in small batches by seamstresses) as well.

 

I don't think it's a big surprise that Soom MDs are created using 3D Software, the symmetrical perfection of their sculpts has always suggested so while some of their older Super Gem sculpts have the slight imperfections that make me hope they were hand sculpted. I do, and would again, own both happily and appreciate the slight differences in result.

As many people have already testified using 3D software to sculpt is not easy. In the same way that I found using Photoshop to create my illustrations at first was like trying to draw wearing boxing gloves, it's a very different discipline that requires time to learn and repetition to perfect. The few objects I have designed using 3D software were quite basic in shape and I found that this technology does not easily lend itself to creating organic, fluid shapes. So frankly I tip my hat to Soom's sculptors and anyone else who can bend the limitations of this technology to their will. Because that IS what you do with CAD, make it do what you want. There still has to be a talented sculptor involved with a flair for 3 dimensional design.

I know that some people have a preference for hand crafted dolls and would feel cheated somehow if they owned a computer generated sculpt. So I think it would be nice if BJD companies stated which method they use to create their dolls. That way buyers can decide where to spend their money. I adore Dollstown dolls and marvel at the skill of the sculptor but that doesn't stop me appreciating the beauty of 3D software generated dolls either. Many hours of skilled dedication went into producing both and as long as copying and bootlegging are not involved, I don't see the problem either way.

 

To me this like the difference between digital art and hand painted art. There isn't any. You're essentially talking about a different medium, the thoughts and ideas that go into each creation is what matters most, not the medium you use to create it.

 

This is very intriguing point...
I must say I am definitely making a stand for the "oldschool" way. I don't mind these "newcomers", but I don't view them on the same level. "Level" not meaning "quality" here, it's something different. It's not because there is less skill involved, but because to me, there is less feeling involved. Someone keen on computer graphics will probably think otherwise, but I am an old-fashioned artist and I've always chosen handwork over technological solutions. It's a completely different feeling to "knead" a face out of a grey block in cyberspace, than it is to actually knead it. I'm not saying digital kneading is any less artistic, but I simply find things made by computers (even though they are actually made by the men behind those computers) come of a little... Cold. Unpersonal. I don't know why and I don't really have a good reason for it, but I like the idea that the doll I'm holding was hand-sculpted. In fact, this is also why I love OOAK artist dolls even more than regular resin dolls. I like my dolls to be as personal as possible, not as perfect as possible. And since I am making dolls myself, I know the emotions that arise when you're seeing the face come to life through your own hands, or holding the small hand you just made, still warm from your own body heat. I know the artist that made the original doll will have felt the same. Therefore, I prefer handmade dolls over computer-created ones.

 

Yes, there is. They're different because the methods used to create them are different. This is not saying that one is better than the other. They both have their place.

 

I see this sort of like saying there's a difference between watercolor and oil paint and acrylics and digital painting -- people can prefer the look of one or the other, or love them all as paintings, based on the content/end result. There's a difference there, but it's up to the individual to decide whether their emphasis is on medium or results. IMHO, you're shooting yourself in the foot if you love the end result, and dismiss it based purely on the medium; similarly you're being rather silly if you get something you don't like the look/end result of purely because of how it was made. You can get good or bad results from any of the above, just as is the case with traditional and digital sculpture, so I'm not implying the superiority of one or the other.

 

I find stating that digitally sculpted dolls aren't hand-crafted a pretty useless distinction to make. What, do the digital sculptors use the mouse/tablet with their feet? Nose-hairs, maybe? Nope, they're using hands, too. And of course the multitude of people who polish the prototype cast, create the molds, cast the dolls, sand and paint them are also hopefully working with their hands. I realize that blahblahblah 3D technology isn't physical, but implying that it isn't hand-crafted falls pretty much into the same line of thought as the old fozzies who never once tried painting or creating anything digitally and insist that it's inferior because apparently, you magically press this magical button of magicness on one of dem laptops, and it just poops out a masterpiece for you. If uh... anyone knows where that button is, let me know, yeah? 'Cause frankly I've started developing muscles where no normal people have them, and my fingers ache after holding the stylus for hours on end, sketching in and rendering the details. It'd be great if my lappie could do it all for me and make me famous.

Aside from medium, there really is not a single difference in the skills required to make a doll, or a painting. You use the same exact fundamental principals - anatomy, structure. You need to engineer the doll's joints to function in a pleasing fashion, regardless of media. In the case of painting or designing the overall look of the doll, you'll also use colour theory, composition and other elements of design. Both mediums have their strengths and weaknesses. Sure, a digital version of a doll can be modified, whereas a physical copy might have to be redone. But you can't feel a digital version of the doll, you can't experience how well the joints actually stay together, how sturdy and balanced the doll is. That all has to come from your experience, and from your head. Sure, perhaps designing a doll in 3D might take less time for someone who knows what they're doing - but that's the issue. You have to know what you're doing, and you have to know it so well that you can visualize it in your head and know it actually works in the physical world. Because really, the prototype you print out better work the first time around or that's thousands of dollars down the drain. In some ways, I'd say it's probably a lot more difficult to create a doll using digital technology than it is to just hand-sculpt it. Someone said that creating things digitally feels like wearing gloves, but I think it's more like oven mitts, or in the case of sculpting, those little probey things that stick out on the outside of a submarine that a researcher can manipulate from the inside via joystick.

And it's not like half of the time you can accurately tell the medium anyways. I was actually recently asked whether one of my recent digital sketches were markers or watercolours, or something else. (I was REALLY flattered by this comment, because even though I'm primarily a digital illustrator I really like the slight rough-around-the-edges charm that physical media drawings tend to have, so I strive to imitate it) I myself have complimented others on their amazing use of paint, only for the artist to laugh and say that they actually made the whole painting digitally. I've also seen a few oil paintings that I am to this day absolutely amazed at. They look like perfectly blended digital paintings. You can't see a single stroke of the brush, a single tread left by a hair (unless you stick your nose right up to it, of course).

Me, personally, I buy dolls that appeal to me. As far as the doll goes, I don't really have a strong preference for one or the other. However, my geeky scientific innovation side just finds the concept of a 3D-rendered, printed doll to just be SO AMAZING. It's absolutely incredible - I mean, when I was little, if you told someone that in just 10-15 years we'd have the technology that would allow us to create something in a virtual space and just make it a reality with little lasers, they'd laugh at you and say you've been watching too much Star Trek (or something). But, here we are. If there's anything in life that I'm more passionate about than drawing/art, it's scientific progress, technology, and the future. And while I like all of my dollies, my little dollies from the future created virtually and realized with pewpew lasers (or... something, but I think lasers are the coolest) are just that much more fascinating.

 

There's a running joke in my job about how customers want a 'make art' button installed in their software. It stopped being a joke when there was rampant screaming that they couldn't just push a single button and replicate the results we had in the promo images we'd created for the items.

I wish I was kidding.

This mindset is considerably more prevalent than most people would ever expect, and it's... well, you have to laugh, really, or you'd never stop crying and tearing out your hair.

 

I really see no practical difference between a handcrafted doll and one manufactured using 3D printing. In fact, considering that the technology is improving all the time, within five or ten years I could easily see 3D printing being a boon to the hobby as a whole. It could be used to reproduce the artist's original sculpt rapidly and easily, reducing production time for each doll and putting them in the hands of buyers that much faster

 

Although 3D rapid prototyping is a really interesting technology what does this mean for sculptors when it comes to BJDs? Sure, it has revolutionised the conventional 3D industrial prototype, and from a doll and figure perspective means wonders for those who have talents in the 3D digital modelling field who are not traditional sculptors. However, what does this mean for the skill and craft that we tend to associate with ball jointed dolls as designer-maker objects? I have mixed feelings on the subject coloured by the fact that I also have a great admiration for art dolls and figurative sculpture which rely on skilled artistic &/ or materials crafting talents but at the same time great admiration for digital arts and used to work in the digital media field ...and technically 3D prototyping can be counted as a fascinating extension of digital print technology. Hence, the jury's out for me as to how to feel about BJDs produced via use of rapid prototyping technology... too many conflicting feelings for me there! Personally, however, I'd rather buy a doll who's original concept was a sculpt rather than a digital concept - more out of admiration for the crafting skill involved.

 

Just thought of a very good reason to prefer the oldschool way or at least keep it going. The influence of MISTAKES on the sculpt. People tend to look at mistakes as a bad thing, and with computers you can polish and re-model your doll over and over again until it's EXACTLY what you wanted... But sometimes you can come to great discoveries by the accidents that happen while sculpting: "Crap, her eyebrows aren't where I intended them to be... *stares at doll for a while* You know, that actually works better than my original idea... I think I'll leave it this way!"
Of course there can be rendering mistakes and such with digital sculpting, but then it's often not so subtle (more like noses missing, hair standing up straight or eyeballs flying around next to the skull). The hand-sculpted way can lead to something completely different than what you've had in mind, but actually work even better. It can lead to new discoveries and help develop your concept of beauty.

 

@Puppit: With 3d modeling you could make just as many mistakes as with ordinary sculpting, you'll just have to refrain yourself from getting the perfect picture. A good artist is able to do that.

The main problem I have (as a sculptor) with 3d programs, is that I like to be very hands on with my sculptures. I want to feel what I'm doing. Although I was quite adaquate in modeling I didn't enjoy it as much as clay, because I was only looking at a picture on a screen. If I wanted that, I would've become a painter.
But this is a personal preference, not proof why one of the two methods is better.

 

What you're describing is frequently called the 'happy accident' artistically.

You're kinda... ok, not kinda, you're completely dead wrong here and I speak from experience. The list is not the only kind of mistakes possible -- all the 'I didn't realize that wasn't symmetrical', 'erk, her nose is in the wrong spot!' and all the same 'oops' mistakes are the same from medium to medium. As a result, that argument just doesn't fly. Trust me when I say that if you couldn't make this kind of mistake, I would be making considerably more money than I currently do and my real world job work would take far less time than it does, and you wouldn't see the vast numbers of wall-eyed horrors in the digital world that... well, there are enough to make one's own eyes cross.

Sure, you might be able to fix a dent with 'undo' or smoothing in the computer, but don't pretend you can't fix it with sanding or patching with clay/resin/etc. in traditional media to 'escape' a mistake if one is made. Take a look at the thread in large dolls for Loki/Ludwig, a traditionally sculpted doll where the proportions of the face have been changed, with progress shots -- a change in proportions is entirely possible in traditional media; it is not exclusively the realm of digital media. The difference in method absolutely does not in any way change the potential for this form of 'happy accident'. I may not have been sculpting dolls digitally, but I have been sculpting digitally for the past five years now, so I know for an absolute fact that one experiences the same incidence of 'oops... hey, wait, that's awesome!' as they often have experienced in traditional mediums.

I hate to be so blunt, but it seems that you really do not understand the digital medium at all if you think this doesn't and can't happen with the same frequency, and seem to believe what many do: that it does all the work for you. It simply does not happen that way, no matter how much people who only look at it from the outside believe. (And those of us on the inside sometimes wish!) Mistakes come from human error -- and no matter how smart the computer; when it's doing what you tell it to, there is plenty of human error to go around. It's not as though the computer is programmed to standard human proportions and won't let you move the eyebrows outside the lines. We are still talking about equipment that has to function with the use of human hands. It is just as easy to slip with a digital tablet as with an exacto knife or dremel, because in the end, a human hand is controlling the tool. That is where those accidents come from, not the medium itself.

I seriously wish people could comprehend the fact that just because a set of technical know-how is different, it doesn't make it any less difficult to learn, hone, and perfect. The problems you are describing are that kind -- not the 'happy accident' kind. That's the digital sculptor's equivalent of a joint not fitting into its socket at all because you used molding compounds with vastly different shrinkage rates, not the kind of thing you can leave alone without fixing it in some manner, or scrapping a great deal of work and redoing it from an earlier point.

What Silk describes is actually the biggest shortfall of digital media by leaps and bounds. Until you have something in hand, it is incredibly difficult to truly understand its shape and form in the real 3d world, rather than the virtual one. Things can look quite different from one piece of software to the next, let alone in real space. Certain technical issues -- like the movement of joints, or the actual weight of an object (will it stand? can it sit without falling over?) -- are almost impossible to test until you have the prototype in hand. (These run from around $3k-$12k for a single prototype from what I've priced out for an SD size doll, for the record, depending on the production house.) You then either have to employ the same handwork techniques a traditional sculptor would to adjust the prototype, or go back to the software with your fingers crossed and be ready to shell out for new pieces, however many need replacing, and hope it doesn't need another revision. (Another huge expense.)

 

I have worked with digital artists, such as 3D modellers and animators, and I know it's a huge lot of work, so please don't get me wrong on that! I'm not saying digital sculpting is easier, or takes less time.
It's just that most of the people I've met tended to strive a bit too much for perfection (meaning perfect symmetry and such), which I don't like. I seem to have offended you by thinking that they were representative for most of the CGI artists, I'm sorry for that. I know there are plenty of artists who aren't such hair-splitters and keep the creative development alive. Of course you can re-sculpt and mod and add and sand away things excessively when you're using clay as well, but there is a limit to what the material can take: If you keep sanding away, adding clay, sanding away and adding again it will weaken the material. And sometimes you can find out that something simply can't be changed because you made mistake in the base modelling/structure. Of course this can happen on a computer as well, but with sculpting you don't have back-ups of the earlier version or an underneath layer that you can change without having to start from scratch. I'm not saying that this is always possible, because changing the "base line"sometimes it inflicts with the other layers of the digital model, but it's much more often an option than it is when you're doing regular sculpting, as you simply don't have individual access to the other layers any more.
So it just seemed to me that using a computer would make people choose sooner for "over-processing" their design than regular sculpting.

 

Not offended, no. I will admit to an extreme frustration with the lack of understanding of the medium demonstrated by not just posters in this thread, but the people I encounter daily in my work environment. People still tend to believe you push a magic button and all the work is done for you, error-free. It has never been true, but this doesn't change the oppressive prevalence of this belief.

Sadly, the software I tend to use the most for this is currently doing an update, and most of their documentation is apparently offline due to the download volume, or I could readily demonstrate just how disdained 'too much symmetry' is in the digital world. It's considered a failure of realism, and a sign of an amateur. The most interesting things there are weird, distorted-looking creatures. They're utterly fabulous.

Most digital models don't have layers. They're an external 'skin' that is manipulated. You have to create the internal shapes directly to define something with actual volume as an enclosed shape.

A number of people involved with 3D digital art are math junkies, obsessed with ideal proportions and ratios and symmetry, and these things are more important to them than a realistic or desirable artistic result. That said, the problems you describe can happen to even those people. The 'happy accident' is something one has to be open to, however. Someone in pursuit of those goals is not going to be open to it. Someone looking to create something artistically is.

A number of the sculptors I have an enormous respect for are in the special effects industry. Quite a few use both techniques. I don't find the resulting work any better or worse due to the medium. Talent is talent. An eye for art is an eye for art. A tool is just a tool.

 

In reaction to Surreality: I must admit I don't do 3D digital modelling myself, I've only seen other people doing it while I was working in the same room, hence why I used the word "layers", lacking a better word, but you got my drift.
I tend to be extremely non-digital when it comes to my working process since I don't understand computers (or any electronics, really)... The only program I get is Photoshop, that somehow seems to follow my line of thinking.
I don't like working with something I don't understand, but I can see the appeal and possibilities in CGI, both the up- and downsides. I'm a stop-motion animator myself so sometimes it's just better or faster or simply more convenient for me to use a computer to review my captions and edit the film, as well as adding sound... But it takes a tremendous effort for me to understand those programs, perhaps also because I'm a complete idiot at math and science... I have a lot of respect for people who do understand these programs, because to me it seems like they're using magic. Then again I found out they are often flabbergasted when I tell them the flying puppet in the movie is simply hanging by wires instead of digitally edited into the background, or look with big eyes if I'm transforming a lumb of clay into a perfectly realistic skull or rabbit or whatever in a matter of minutes. So I guess both the admiration and frustration (damn those computer geeks laughing at my dirty hands and sighing when they want to use the sink but I need it to clean my brushes) works both ways. I think we are all a bit prejudiced and "in favour" of our own way of doing things. Of course it's about the quality in the end, but when I would be presented two equally beautiful and character-wise attractive dolls, one digitally modelled and one sculpted, I would pick the sculpted one... Simply because I can relate to it more. I understand how it came to be and what the artist went through. I suppose that would be the same for you, wouldn't it? It's just cool to know that the doll was made through a medium you like to work with.

 

See, I think that's it, really. It doesn't have as much to do with the results the medium spits out -- but empathy with the artistic process that produced it. That makes perfect sense.

Personally, I buy what I like -- I don't worry about the process (unless it involves something actually illegal/improper like recasting). The 'oh neat!' factor for me is about the fact that it can be done at all.

I've done some hand sculpting. I could do body forms relatively well, but faces... oh no. Painfully, laughably no. Poor sad things. Strangely, it's the reverse digitally -- faces are no problem, bodies... not so easy. The end result is more what it's about for me. Maybe it's because I have tried both methods, but I don't think so. I can understand why that empathy would sway a choice, however.

The 'magic' thing I can understand as well -- but that's skill. It does indeed go both ways. I remember watching painting shows when I was younger, and thinking, 'Wow, they make it look so easy!' ...and it isn't. Even some of the tutorials I could link certainly make it look easy -- but that's because of the artist's skill, not because the tools are doing the work for them. (I only wish I could do what they do.)

Physical familiarity with different tools is a huge issue, too. I can draw fairly well with a pencil, but am horrible with a tablet. The feel of the tool is different, the way you look at a page (and can watch the connection between pencil and paper) vs. working on a tablet and seeing the physically disconnected result of pen to tablet doing nothing, but appearing on the screen, are definitely factors for a number of folks I know. Some can do both, but a lot seem to favor one or the other.

 

Surreality, I think we've just pretty much drawn the conclusion of this thread! Thanks for this conversation.

(It may sound weird thanking someone for talking, but I think it's important for digital and analogue artists to have -mature- discussions like this every once in a while. Otherwise we might drift apart even further, forming our own snobby cliques and that would not only result into a loss of potential friends, but also a loss of potential knowledge and creativity)

 

I'm just joining here to share what i think to me the 3D modelling have nothing wrong, instead offers an hight level of realism and the chance to have differents mold-face, body sculpting, and the process in developing the entire doll project is faster than the standard hand sculpting process.
There's few comapny that use the 3D modelling and honestly i'm quite fine with it, at least even those sculptors that works to a doll wth stnadard handmade modelling, need to see some reference pics.
Just my tow of course.

 

I have to agree.

I honestly think that the intent of the artist will shine through no matter what the medium. If they're a fussy symmetry junkie, it will emerge digital or traditional; if they're willing to explore more realistic and natural options, that will, too. It comes down to something I call "give a *bleep*", and the general concept is this: the people who care to do something well will find the way to do that, and get the idea out there in the best possible form.

I think it's mostly that so many people have different ideas as to what 'the best possible form' is. For instance, in traditional sculpting, perfect symmetry would be a sign of mastery -- it's the reverse digitally. That's a technical thing, in a sense; it's impressive because it's 'the hard thing' traditionally. It's easy to look at a different medium that handles 'the hard thing' easily and say the whole thing is easy, since it handles 'the hard thing', when demonstrating technical mastery of 'the hard thing' actually shouldn't be the goal (the goal being something with appeal/character/personality). So there's a lot of 'grass is always greener' when in my opinion is that the reality is, reality lies in the middle, along with character and personality in the finished work. That tends to get lost in a lot of the discussions because of the 'but you get this part easy, and this other part is hard' when the reality/character/personality really is, to me, the real core of it all, since the technical side balances out in the good and bad points for any given tool.

 

So long as the doll is original and I like them, sure!

There was an artist on the joint who was actually making a doll this way.

 

Agreed. Creating a doll isn't just about the greatest display of skill handling the medium. One can be greatly skilled on a computer or at oldschool handiwork, and create beautiful dolls, but completely suck at giving them character. I think that would be the quality that lifts the doll up, far above the digital-vs-analogue discussion, because creating a great character is something that isn't attached to a single medium. Beauty can be (symmetry and such), but character definitely can't.

 

I think any way that lets the artist enjoy its work and successfully create what they intended to do is awesome!

May I ask those of you who do work with 3D digital art, is it possible to make a prototype with clay, to see that joints work as they should, "scan" it and then continue to work with it digitally to perfect it aesthetically?

 

I know the guys of Weta who made the CGI for Lord of the Rings did exactly that for the trolls and such. So yes, it's possible.

 

If you use with ZBrush for making a model I guess this gap between working with real material and digital modeling is disappearing coz this program is based on imitating the sculpting process, and yeah of course you have nothing to hold in your hands until you print it, but you need to have the same skills as any sculptor do, so I don't see the reason to put it on the different level with a real sculpting.

 

Actually 3d is way harder then it looks lol. Theres a big difference especially in perspective itself. BJD are dolls of aesthetic value, not so functional (Save for the joints). Its easy to do engineering stuff using 3D as there are well proven ideas behind them (even that is not simple) but if you work on a doll in 3d space, you really need to visualize it in your mind, from how light falls on the subject to the subtle curves that can make a difference. Also without the feel of the object its actually harder to sculpt.

Now add on the cost of a system that can do the modelling in a proficient manner, also as a business I dont think piracy should be the way and some of the better software do cost a fortune. Add in the controller software, the CNC or 3d Printing machine, I dont think many doll companies can sustain that form of capital easily.

To really say this argument is similar to the Film Vs Digital (Not the same process but the movement from traditional to technology), ultimately the equipment can only aid you, the user still have to put substantial effort in creating the art disregarding the format. Infact for the case of film, its true that one can do fantastic thing in photoshop but there is still the "film feel" that never gets old. If the output is good, why restrict oneself rather then enjoy ?

For me I will buy a doll as long as its a original sculpt, digital or traditional, as either will have to put in countless hours to get that sculpt that you and I may enjoy.

 

This is absolutely possible -- but it also is a pretty big expense for large pieces. (Owning the scanner, even bigger expense.) 3d scanners spit out something that typically needs a lot of work, according to the folks I have spoken with who work with them. The company I sell through has worked with one, and talking to the artist who had to work with the result is probably enough to scare most folks away from this idea. (They had bodyscanned a lady to make a body shape from, and it did not exactly work as easily as even they imagined it would. ) I initially thought it could prove interesting as well, but according to him, you essentially have to redo everything it spits out anyway, like tracing in 3D... which can be done from good multi-angle photo reference almost as well for considerably less cash.

I really do think looking at how the special effects industry is using this tech is a great way to go about looking at the tools available. They've always had some of the most innovative problem-solving solutions, and end up using them in some unexpected and insightful ways.

That's what I've been working in recently to learn the ins and outs of it. It really is a 'crossover' program in a lot of ways; if the technical side of the brain can get past the (OMG this does how many different crazy things?) interface, it is a lot more like art than 'science' than most modeling programs. Granted, I've only puttered with three others, but those three were seemingly impenetrable to various degrees. The design philosophy of the program is quite different, along with the concept behind what it's supposed to do. It's more focused on art than tech as compared to a lot of software, which makes it far easier for a lot of traditional artists to adopt since it doesn't make you worry as much about some of the things traditional modeling applications focus on by comparison (unless for some reason you want to). It's what makes it pretty great for 2d art prints of a model as an image, or for rapid prototyping.

 

Thank you Puppit and Surreality for answering my question! That is so fascinating! Hopefully, in time, there will come techniques that will make all that easier. I love this stuff!

 

I have to agree that as far as the project is original there isn't all this difference between modeling with 3D or handsculpting modeling,
both way need skills, surely different skills but you need to get familiar with, and have some talent.
I can surely do some photoshop digital picuters,but i'll never be able to use ZBrush as well as handsculpting something.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/click_online/9550469.stm

I was working in class today when I remembered an old post idea I had when I first saw this on TV.
It can print with resin. So does this mean that in the future BJDs could be made with them? How would you feel if that happened and would it be a good thing or a bad thing for the hobby as a whole? And if it DID come true, would these creations be allowed on this forum?

Personally, this looks like a good idea. Traditional casting isn't a quick or easy process. It fails frequently and it results in a lot of slightly off casts being thrown away. It's not like it could get rid of the jobs altogether. Someone will still need to design them (The scanner could scan an original copy or maybe the whole doll is designed virtually using a 3d program?), someone will still need to quality check, sand and paint it if required. It's just that it wouldn't take as long and would be more cost efficient. I'm still undecided regarding allowing them on this forum. The lines are already blurred enough sometimes.

 

There is already a thread on this topic >link<

 

I was wondering about somebody else having posted one like this. that's why I added the extra question of "Should they be allowed on here?" to at least give this thread some other purpose if there was.

 

Technically speaking, they are already on here, though they are traditionally cast. (3D printing is far, far too expensive for production line work at this time.) There's a few notes in the existing thread about that.

Edit: To give you some idea of what I mean by 'considerably more costly', I used the cost estimator on one of the sites out there that specializes in this. The dimensions were to calculate something the size of a single SD thigh. That single thigh would have cost over $500 to have 3D printed through that particular company, which specializes in the resin prints and strong detail. Others vary in cost, but considering that one can buy a full doll -- all costs included -- for that same amount, I don't see 3D printing replacing traditional casting methods any time soon.

 

My question is: Why shouldn't they be? They're still BJD's. They are still created by sculptors. It's not like they are manufactured out of thin air.

But, 3d scanning isn't as easy as it looks. Traditional sculpting might takes a lot of time, but so does computer sculpting. Together with the cost, I don't think this method is beneficial to traditional sculpting and casting; it's just a different way of designing. Like surreality said: I don't think 3d printing will replace traditional methods any time soon.

 

sorry to necro this thread but I'm curious of which companies use 3D computer scupting?

 

I think either way as long as they let us know is fine. As long as the quality is gorgeous, it shouldn't matter. But hand sculpted does sound a lot more artistic. Lol.

 

Iplehouse, Fairyland and Angelsdoll, maybe a few others.

 

Soom is also supposed to work with this method...

 

I don't see anything wrong with 3D dolls, it's just a different art form. I don't think they really detract from hand sculpted dolls, or that hand sculpting is outdated or archaic. Hand made items will always have a place in the marketplace, but computer generated items have a place out there too.