Mahon the painter | 28 Dec 2011 6:36 a.m. PST |
Digital sculpting is becoming more and more popular in the world of miniature painting hobby. But as many new things it is still a controversial thing to many of us. How does it compare to traditional sculpting and what do you think about it?
Just another tool for sculptors? Completely new direction in sculpting? Or just taking a shortcut which will eventually result in worsening sculpting skills? Read more about digital sculpting vs. traditional sculpting and feel free to share your comments :) |
Sysiphus | 28 Dec 2011 7:06 a.m. PST |
I like my figures to have a bit more relief than what I've seen from figures designed by CAD/Digital systems. |
earthad | 28 Dec 2011 7:10 a.m. PST |
|
Pictors Studio | 28 Dec 2011 7:14 a.m. PST |
I have minis done by both means and I think both have their uses. Somethings, like vehicles, are just as well when done digitally as any other way. I think digital sculpting will improve over time as will output methods for it. It probably won't eclipse traditional sculpting entirely as there will still be some smaller markets that can't afford to finish the figs thus sculpted but I'd imagine it will take over a good chunk of market share, if it hasn't already. |
Angel Barracks | 28 Dec 2011 7:16 a.m. PST |
Good for companies as they have an infinite supply of masters that can be easily modified and reproduced. Maybe it will worsen sculpting skills. But then if something is better a new way why do the old? Not that I am saying there is no place for doing things the old fashioned way, but some change is good. Michael.
|
JRacel | 28 Dec 2011 7:20 a.m. PST |
I think they complement each other and that there is a place for both in the industry. Jeff |
mad monkey 1 | 28 Dec 2011 7:29 a.m. PST |
|
KenofYork | 28 Dec 2011 7:30 a.m. PST |
I can not sculpt at all. Digital tools have allowed me to actually start to be creative. It is very nice. |
combat wombat | 28 Dec 2011 7:44 a.m. PST |
I love digital sculpting but i am still learning. I find that I can turn ideas into production models much faster with traditional scuplting methods. CW |
Dropship Horizon | 28 Dec 2011 9:03 a.m. PST |
As long as the figures carry their weapons corectly, have the correct kit, look like human beings in the war zone, and if they are billed as 15mm, 28mm or whatever actually are those sizes – I can only see digital sculpting/printing being a good thing. Cheers Mark |
wrgmr1 | 28 Dec 2011 10:21 a.m. PST |
I agree with General Disaster. |
Dr Mathias | 28 Dec 2011 10:25 a.m. PST |
A digital artist still needs the same understanding of proportion and anatomy, not to mention that intangible artistic 'je ne sais quoi' that a true artist brings to the table. My pet peeve is that digital artists tend to mirror/reflect the faces and torsos across the central axis without slightly tweaking each side afterward. For me that has two problems- it seems odd on something like orc torsos to see small scale plates 'haphazardly arranged', yet arranged exactly the same way on each half. Also, people in real life are not exactly symmetrical, and is why early attempts at CGI people are really off-putting. They don't have the intrinsic imperfections that are so subtle we barely notice them. For some reason, that even bothers me at 28mm. Hand sculpted works will never be exactly the same, and come off better for it IMO. |
Space Monkey | 28 Dec 2011 10:33 a.m. PST |
I notice a lot of vehicles and spaceships that I've assumed were digital sculpts are very boxy
the shapes are boxes with boxes stuck on for detail. Few if any curves at all. It could also be that they're being sculpted out of plasticard
Whatever it is there's a boring sameness to them
it's a style that seems guided by the medium and is overused. Also the stuff like the OP example where the sculptor has gone nutty with detail on top of what is, otherwise, a kind of 'meh' figure. GW seems to shlog out some of that too
some of the recent sculpts
like the Skaven Abomination and the fugly minotaurs have a digital ick on them that puts me off. I think it's harder to get 'character' into computer sculpts because the forms default to perfect and clean
dirt and imperfections take more work. Ideally I'd think tools are best used to facilitate talent
not replace it
so sculpts that are begun as digital forms but end under the hands of a live sculptor would be the best of both worlds. |
CeruLucifus | 28 Dec 2011 11:16 a.m. PST |
It was nice of you to post two pictures, but unhelpful of you not to say which is digital and which is traditional. Perhaps we are supposed to presume from the color that the gray is digital and the brownish green with reflected lighting is traditional, but I have no confidence of that -- sculpting putties do come in gray, and both color and light effects are simple additions for digital editing tools. I even looked at your blog article and did not see these two pictures represented, so no help there either. Regarding which is better, I am neither kind of sculptor of full miniatures and cannot comment from that perspective. I have done conversions the traditional way with epoxy putty -- I've stuck green stuff onto models and gone at it with sculpting tools, and sometimes been happy with my success. Had the model been digital, the conversion digital, I imagine I could have gotten a better result -- improved curves, more consistent textures, etc. -- and I can see that giving me more success if I was willing to spend the time, as there is no race to finish before the putty hardens. And certainly for a conversion I was happy with I could have easily made additional miniatures. This all pre-supposes I have the sculptor image file of the original miniature, a digital use license, adequate sculpting software, and a way to output the finished sculpt. In other industries the economics of digitization has tended eventually to push professional grade capabilities down to the consumer's level, so I have no doubt sooner or later the capabilities I just described may be available to me. From that perspective digital sculpting is a good thing. As a consumer RIGHT NOW, if a sculpt is satisfactory to me so that I am willing to buy and paint it, I could care less how it is produced. I have the general feeling that digital sculpts are likely to mean less expensive figure cost, probably for units sooner than for individuals; if that feeling is right, it is also a good thing. |
T Meier | 28 Dec 2011 12:09 p.m. PST |
"A digital artist still needs the same understanding of proportion and anatomy" Perhaps it would be more accurate to say it would be nice if he had them. One of digital sculpting's advantages is the shortcuts for framing anatomy including face and body blanks which only require posing. This is why the weakest part of a digital sculpt is the clothing, because there is no way to speed it up or dumb it down. Having said that I think digital sculpting will raise the average standard. Because of the anatomical and other shortcuts sculpting of very poor quality in those respects will be pushed out of the market. Also it will allow people with good ideas but poor technical skills to realize their vision, which otherwise would be much more difficult. You just have to get used to everybody looking like they are dressed in neoprene. |
GeoffQRF | 28 Dec 2011 12:46 p.m. PST |
I suppose in time we will see digital sculpting take over from traditional hand sculpting, in the same way that digital CGI animation has taken over from traditional cell animation. Its a different tool bit, much like the switch from hand drawn artwork to computer generated imagery, the initial trend tends to be to make it easily available to the general masses. In the graphic design industry this saw companies move away from employing design agencies to getting Joe in the corner to do it, on the basis that 'you've got a computer and know what you're doing
How hard can it be?' Plus it is usually a much cheaper option as Joe is already employed as a technicial
We found in design it took about one season for those design companies to see the difference, and realise that they had some pretty poor advertising material. Unfortunately for many of them they were directed by business minds who were only really interested in bottom line costs, and sadly who couldn't see the difference. Joe says, "what can the computer do?". A designer says, "what do I want to create, and how can I make this tool do it?" However even then there is a tendency to work within the limitation of the computer, rather than the mind. We found it took another couple of seasons for the really creative designers and illustrators to move to digital. These days I would defy anyone to separate a good quality digital illustration from a traditionally produced item, at least once it is in print form. Print form may be the current test. While rapid prototyping is improving, and undoubtably pretty amazing, the current quality stamdards that I have seen still fall a long way short of what a good designer cam sculpt the traditional way. |
Mahon the painter | 28 Dec 2011 1:30 p.m. PST |
Wow, nice discussion, guys! :D @donrice – these pictures are only one illustration from the whole article that was linked, and my own musings on the subject are already posted in the article. @T Meier – thanks for joining the discussion, Tom. Input from somebody with your skills, reputation and knowledge of the subject is priceless and I appreciate it a lot. Especially that I mentioned you and your works in the article (man, I even used one of them to illustrate it). Carry on guys, I enjoy reading the discussion! Thanks :) |
Who asked this joker | 28 Dec 2011 1:35 p.m. PST |
Conventional sculpting is an art form. I suspect it will be around for a long time. I also think that digital sculpting is an asset to the industry because it makes figures considerably cheaper than the metal ones that were sculpted by conventional means. BTW, the digital sculpts are usually plastic but they don't have to be. I have yet to see metal figures made from a digital design. |
GOTHIC LINE MINIATURES | 28 Dec 2011 1:59 p.m. PST |
I think there is a huge difference between a proper sculptor and a computer technician. |
GeoffQRF | 28 Dec 2011 2:18 p.m. PST |
Generally you can teach an artist to use a computer, but it is much harder to teach a technician to be an artist. :-) |
CeruLucifus | 28 Dec 2011 2:33 p.m. PST |
Mahon the painter: @donrice – these pictures are only one illustration from the whole article that was linked
Well, no. All ready to apologize, I clicked the link again and have now been through the article 3 times. That includes clicking each green-colored link and each picture to see what it linked to. I do not see those pictures. I did find them on your blog. If I click "Home" to go to your blog's home page, the header for the article has those two pictures as an illustration. No explanatatory text though, and clicking the header link goes to the same full article as the link you posted above, which as I said, does not have those pictures currently. No doubt they dropped out in the editing process, or the opposite, they were part of a late final edit to the article that you did not successfully upload. Your apology is accepted. That stuff happens. Now please answer the question: Which picture represents a digital sculpture and which is traditional? :) |
Mahon the painter | 28 Dec 2011 3:29 p.m. PST |
oops, right. the picture is a "featured photo", not a photo set inside the article itself. you can see it in the excerpt on the front page. sorry for the confusion, although I don't think it's very relevant to the discussion. ;) regarding your question: the brown one is a traditional sculpt by Kev White, released by Hasslefree Miniatures. The grey one is a digital model (so not an actual casting) of one Raging Heroes miniature. you can see a comparison of their digital models and resin castings in the blog (grey digital model vs orange casting). excellent discussion guys! |
Todd Boyce | 28 Dec 2011 5:29 p.m. PST |
Art is art regardless of what tools are used. I don't understand why people think that someone who does digital sculpting is some sort of technician and not an artist. You're either a good artist or you're not regardless of whether you pick up a wad of putty or a wacom stylus. The only people who think digital artists are "technicians" are those who feel threatened by the new medium, or are snobs who put down methods that fly in the face of their favored techniques simply because they don't want their own favorite art form to be marginalized by more modern tools. Kinda like how film snobs put down digital photography and how they say people taking digital photos aren't real photographers. Traditional sculpting is going to become something for art galleries and not for commercial production, much like film photography. |
Defiance Games | 28 Dec 2011 9:04 p.m. PST |
|
Mako11 | 28 Dec 2011 9:40 p.m. PST |
I have no problem with the sculpting, and suspect, over time, if not already, it'll be the way to go for fine detailing, and modifications. The real problem is the printing phase of digital sculpting, which still leaves a lot to be desired, due to the striations you get with them. |
shaun from s and s models | 29 Dec 2011 4:04 a.m. PST |
i have recently enroled at a local college to learn 3 d modeling, it is taking me quite a while to get my head around it, but i do understand the primcipals. the college has a £25,000.00 GBP 3d printer and quite frankly the quality of the finnished models/items are not acceptable to me. so if a £25.00 GBP grand machine is not good enough then a much more expensive printer will be needed. it may be ok for buildings ect, but i think it has to go a long way before the traditional method is surpassed. |
link hunter 99 | 29 Dec 2011 5:21 a.m. PST |
the current quality stamdards that I have seen still fall a long way short of what a good designer cam sculpt the traditional way. this shows that you have not seen the best out there, not that the standards are low. what you say is a big insult to many others manufacturers who have 3d printed products and that much better than yours are. but this is a true factor as Todd says: people are frightened of the changes and those who do not know enough make things up to protect themselfs, ostrich with head in the sand. it may be ok for buildings ect, but i think it has to go a long way before the traditional method is surpassed. as before, what you have seen is poor does not mean that what there is out there is poor. you do not buy your own machine though, you use a print studio which has 7, 8, 9, 10 machines which do different things, materials and quality. a lot of people go out and see a couple of machines or ask for samples and then say 'oh that is crap' and then go off saying it is all crap. which is not so. a 25,000 machine is low-end so not surprising output is poor. or go to shapeways and ask for WSF and wonder why the model is lumpy. duh. The real problem is the printing phase of digital sculpting, which still leaves a lot to be desired, due to the striations you get with them.
yes and no. yes, because many low-end printers leave artefacts. no because lazy manufacturers should remove artefacts anyway but they do not bother. its not the technique fault it is lazy people like 'oh i left thumbprint on model master, oops never mind' this is where the people with human skill will win because they know how to remove print lines and how to work with printers to remove artefacts before printing by careful setup and design. but this is the same for all models, not just prints. most people now just design a model and print it, then cast that print. wrong way, or very sloppy at best. you must design with printing and casting in mind and knowing that prints will need finish work. printer should understand the end use and help with arrangement of item for printing, or ask sculptor to change some elements or parts. when people do this customers now are already buying printed miniatures where the buyer does not know they are from 3d prints. people who say the standard is not there are not in date or have been shown sloppy techniques or, most common, use cheap machines. quality is there now, many people chose to pay for lower quality though which is same as chosing cheaper sculptor over Mr Meier: there is a difference in output quality. I don't understand why people think that someone who does digital sculpting is some sort of technician and not an artist. You're either a good artist or you're not regardless of whether you pick up a wad of putty or a wacom stylus. yes, snobbery and fear. but, 3d system will allow more bad artists to produce stuff easier than with putty and get it to sales counter. So people will say that 3d will lower the standards of sculpting because people are like that. they forget that there are plenty of very very bad products now which were sculpted in putty, now though is there a Golden Time where everybody used putty and no sculpts were ever bad. simply not true. |
Femeng2 | 29 Dec 2011 6:06 a.m. PST |
I am an damn good engineer, but I could not design a master if my life depended on it, It would look horrible, sort of what you guys are talking about. The artist portion of my brain has given way to the engineer part. Yet most engineers I know stopped progressing afte college. Just perform for the money. I believe most artists are the same way, just can use those tools and techniques they learned in school. Those truely inventive and adaptable are rare birds. Those who can do the engineering and the artististic rarer still. But one will come along and change the industry. |
richarDISNEY | 29 Dec 2011 8:44 a.m. PST |
I like whatever makes the best looking models.
|
shaun from s and s models | 29 Dec 2011 2:25 p.m. PST |
i have seen examples of work with better quality machines as well as what you call low end £25,000.00 GBP, and the quality was still not as good as i would like. in the time it would take even a skilled cad/cam expert to design 1 model, i could build a few masters and have them moulded. i agree that when the price does come down to a lower level we will see loads of 3d prints being released. it would be a sad day if it ever replaced actual sculpting/modeling. |
GOTHIC LINE MINIATURES | 29 Dec 2011 3:55 p.m. PST |
Indeed Shaun Sculpting is at the heart of the matter
|
Bosco05 | 02 Jan 2012 4:28 a.m. PST |
Here's what I see happening with 3D rendering – it will become the main way figures are produced for the higher end of the market. The technology will both continue to improve and come down in price (remember PCs) and it will become a way to purchase highly customized figures in a very efficient manner – the figures are digitally designed in one location and the the file is shipped to a local spot or even a home 3d printer to be rendered. There are some early adopters doing something like this now – shapeways for example. The local rendering will become a reality as it has applications beyond tou soldiers – some electronics and smart phone vendors are looking into the technology as a way to reduce inventory costs for peripherals for each new smart phone. Rather than hold a whole bunch of inventory (which may or may not sell), the product can be produced on-demand and customized on site. We're 5 or so years away from that but I think the distribution efficiencies alone are enough economic incentive to drive adoption. I do agree with the other comments that the same artistic spirit that is required to do a hand sculpt is needed to created the CAD design for a mini, it's just a different set of technical tools required to execute the vision. |
T Meier | 02 Jan 2012 6:10 a.m. PST |
"it will become the main way figures are produced for the higher end of the market." I agree, but it's attractions to the 'higher end' have nothing to do with with the quality of the sculpting, which is dubious, they are largely advantages which make the lives of middle managers easier and their jobs more secure at the expense of quality. It is an axiom that any bureaucratic organization begins to work to the advantage of middle managers as the layers of management increase, generally to the detriment of the purported mission of the organization. |
Jerrod | 06 Jan 2012 6:08 a.m. PST |
I wonder if two Neanderthals were standing in a cave, spitting 'paint' over their hands, looked at each and said Eeee lad! It'll be a reet sad day when people start using those new-fangled paintbrush things to paint!" or when plasticard came out and wood-carvers said "Pfsh, modern rubbish that, does nothing that wood cant and takes longer to work with!" dont need no epoxy, hand-dug clay, fresh oot'river and a broken twig is al I need!" Dee
(although why Neanderthals would have a pseudo yorkshire accent is beyond me) |
NoLongerAMember | 06 Jan 2012 11:10 a.m. PST |
Possibly because of the incidence of Neandertals in modern yorkshire
. Duck and cover
.
|
T Meier | 08 Jan 2012 11:59 a.m. PST |
"I wonder if two Neanderthals were standing in a cave
" I suppose then we must have the more innovative Neanderthals to thank for all the mass-produced rubbish we eat, wear, live in, listen to and look at all day. Technology doesn't always mean progress, at least not for everyone, it should not be approved reflexively but only on sensible and deliberate consideration. I don't cotton to neoprene much myself nor do I have an art staff I'd like to be easily replaced if they make my life difficult but I can see how this would appeal to some people. Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto. |
Jerrod | 10 Jan 2012 5:51 a.m. PST |
I suppose then we must have the more innovative Neanderthals to thank for all the mass-produced rubbish we eat, wear, live in, listen to and look at all day. All right
all right
but apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order
what have the Neanderthals[sic] ever done for us? |
infojunky | 10 Jan 2012 9:41 p.m. PST |
Well to be honest from a working artists stand point it is about how much does it cost. Which is the biggest question driving the manufacturers of our favorite toys. It's all a balance of start-up cost vs replication/manufacturing costs vs total market demand. You use the cheapest combination. Consider this, Digital sculpting requires a fairly powerful computer $500 USD+ and related software $200 USD+ as core start up cost, add to that the numbers of hours to be come proficiatant in use of said software. Compared to Greenstuff $20 USD for a tube and basic tools
. Now consider the path to becoming a "professional" miniature sculptor, currently it is a rather informal process. Note I didn't count the cost of a solid print nor cost of master and production molds as both are common to both paths. So Both? It really comes down to what the artist is comfortable working with. |
T Meier | 11 Jan 2012 9:56 p.m. PST |
"All right
all right
but apart from better sanitation
" There was a rather interesting study done on bones in Western Europe. You can tell a lot about how a person lived from bones, including lifespan, nutrition and how hard they had to work for a living. The rather surprising result was that based on a good life being long, well-nourished and easy, things went on a long slide for the average person starting with the advent of agriculture and not getting better until the middle of the 19th century. Technology is what it is, it's not your friend, that sort of thinking is as silly as the people who think because a thing is natural it is good. I'm not particularly against this technology but I don't think it will produce an improvement in technical quality, that's not what it improves. |
TerryOC | 11 Jan 2012 10:04 p.m. PST |
One of the advantages of digital sculpting is the ability to alter the sculpt. Sandrine Thirach, who did the recent minis for Mongoose's A Call To Arms: Star Fleet, had dozens of Star Fleet Universe grognards looking over her shoulder and saying, "No, no! The phaser emitter should be over HERE!!" and the like. She still got 65 or so sculpts done in a few months. So for things where it's gotta be 100% accurate and perfectly in scale (e.g. historical ships) digital is simply superior. @Infojunky: whether or not to spend the $ for a computer and software is a business decision. How much sales you expect to get, the price of the sculptor's time, how many minis in the line, etc. all factor in. If you expect to sell enough of them, then digital will be economically feasible, or even superior. |
infojunky | 14 Jan 2012 7:05 a.m. PST |
Terry that is what i was saying. I know of at least one Sculpter/Manufacturer in our hobby that still makes wax masters and used investment casting for his masters. The funny thing is now I have seen is a benchtop plastic injection set up that looks to be cheeper that spincasting in both making of the dies and operation. But those are production methods and not sculpting. And to be honest I prefer clay and/or styrene sheet/shapes to sitting infront of a screen. Though there are some bits that plain easier with the computer, mostly those are often used repeatedly sorts of things
|