Bathsheba's Bioform

Hi all -- My first prints arrived. I'm trying to get a feel for what's possible as I work on my own designs (read: draw lots of flowing biological designs on paper, and then make shipping crates of various sizes in Blender). As I'm a biologist, I thought it would be cool to display Bathsheba's Bioform piece on my desk in an attempt to ensnare colleagues into either a discussion of 3D printing or, better yet, misguided attempts to name the species that owned this little shell/skeleton.

I had Bioform printed in limestone look strong & flexible (LLSF?). Here are some photos from my crappy built-in camera (sorry, it's all I've got for the moment). The piece is everything I hoped for, a near-perfect print of a sweet little sculpture that is very satisfying to handle and stare at from any direction.



I like positioning it "upside down" (at least relative to the pictures in Bathsheba's shop), which gives the piece a rather predatory aspect.



If I printed this piece again, I'd print it in WSF, and perhaps tea-stain it, as the limestone color doesn't quite match the bony shape. The pictures above are sepia-toned; here's a color shot.



Props to Bathsheba for a lovely design, and to Shapeways for artistry that covers its own tracks.

It surely is a lovely design! I would agree with you that the limestone is probably a little grey for your needs.

But, I will also caution you about tea staining. It works very nicely on the white detail material, but it doesn't adhere well to the SWF material at all.

So, if you order the piece for tea dying, make sure you order it in the White Detail, if possible.

Otherwise, the SWF material does actually dye very well with commercial fabric dyes, such as RIT. I believe this is how Shapeways dyes this material.

Best of luck! Have you had great reactions to Bathsheba's piece on your desk ?

-Whystler

Ahh -- useful data. I did order another piece in White Detail, and found its print quality to be substantially lower than I'd hoped, so I'm leery of that material.

On those lines: along with everything else I've read, including Mack's test pieces, I have gleaned that 1) WSF is robust both in its physical consistency and its print-to-print consistency, while other materials show wider variability, and 2) model design is paramount, and must suit the material and the process. Bioform was clearly designed by someone who knew what she was doing. The other piece (which I'll post on separately) feels more like a "let's see, this could be cool" kind of piece.

The reaction to Bioform has been great (in the one hour that I had it out before taking it home for a bit of staring and drooling) -- appropriate amazement from folks on the hall. No taxonomic errors yet; I actually work with some sharp people. Plenty of excitement from one structural biologist friend, who wants me to print the proteins he studies so he can study their docking by using his hands rather than just his imagination...