When my original timeline was developed, as part of the Proposal unit, it was at the end of a difficult period of the pandemic (Winter 2020) that had seen restrictions put in place on how I could access resources as well as external factors like having to care for my school age son when the schools were closed. There was however an element of naive positivity to the run up to the Christmas period where at the time we felt restrictions were going to be lifted and 2021 was in general going to be a more normal year. Writing this in March it is clear to me how naive that was after over 4 months of lockdown restrictions being enforced. But my proposal was based on the knowledge I had available to me then, rather than having the benefit of hindsight to steer my decisions.
Even without those restrictions in place, when I evaluate my project now I can see that my original timeline, and indeed my original proposal, was too focused on the production of an object and not on the development that is needed to create an object with meaning. Much of the timeline was about quickly producing a typeface and then marketing it. That’s not to say the research on my proposal has been wasted, it has provided me with an excellent foundation on to which to keep building. Also the core aim of the project, “Design a typeface”, has not changed. It is simply clear to me at this point that I will enjoy exploring the conceptual side of the creation further and that the project will be more theoretically sound if I re-evaluate the timeline and goals, rather than condensing the development of the typeface it my original timings.
At the start of this project I reflected on what I wanted my typeface to communicate. After my discussions with Chris Wilson about Typography, teaching and letterpress I feel looking into how methods of teaching and learning can be integrated into the project will be valuable. As would some further analysis of existing letterforms themselves.
Likewise the learning of a completely new medium, 3D printing, and the required digital tools to use it has taken up much of the time I had allocated to experiment with letterforms so that needs to be integrated into my new timeline.
My proposal was very focused on the commercial aspect of type production, I was going to make something to sell and evaluate it’s success via looking at sales reports and social media engagement. I am realising with my aims shifting to a more educational output these won’t be worthwhile metrics for the success of the project so I need to consider new methods for the evaluation of my final product.
Finally with the restrictions being in place and the disruption to my home, academic and professional life, I have found it much harder than I had originally considered it would be to allocate what I feel is a substantial enough amount of time each week to my Masters project. This is part is due to me choosing a subject that I am passionate about and one that I want to continue on past the submission as a professional project. With that in mind, my new timeline factors in the fact that my teaching will be coming to an end in May so I will be able to dedicate more time to the project.
The name of my project was based on my work in the Digital Media unit, I have previously registered the name Odd Foundry on Instagram as well as the domain name. Currently the content on each is based on the forms created in the Digital Media unit and I identified in my proposal a need to brand the foundry so that the work I produce in this unit will be viewed as a professional output. By trade I am a Graphic and Web Designer so I am well versed in the processes required for creating branding. Here are my initial sketches and developments that I have been producing alongside my 3D printing experiments.
Something I identified in these initial sketches and manipulations on the photocopier is that the visual similarity between O and D is both a benefit and a hindrance. Put ODD through too many distortions and the delineation between what is an O and a D is lost. But conversely, when set in the right typeface the similarity creates rhythm across the design. I feel that with the branding potentially sitting alongside what may be very abstract letterforms the branding itself needs to be clear, clean and distinct from the rest of the page.
I will continue to develop these designs alongside my other experimentations.
As mentioned in a previous post, I have had contact with Chris Wilson, a printmaker, design educator and doctoral candidate based in Newcastle upon Tyne when I was interviewed as part of his Digilog PhD project. Chris was happy to meet up online for a discussion about my project and to give me some information about his own work. His PhD has been investigating the growing community of contemporary letterpress printers making use of new type production methods and how this integrating of traditional craft with modern techniques affects the medium.
I did not record the session due to a computer error but I made notes about the topics covered and his suggestions for further research.
One subject that came up in our discussion, as we are both design educators, is how beneficial the use of physical tools like letterpress can be when teaching a design student about typography. Observing a physical object and it’s form is very different to experience that same form digitally. To be able to hold something physical, create a print, evaluate the result and make changes based on that evaluation is a powerful tool for imparting the key understanding behind the design process. On this theme he describes it as an act of Remediation, to correct something that is deficient. These corrections made with each print pulled can be observed and compared. Each print pulled documents a different part of a design coming together.
As the discussion progressed, the idea of using my project to create a tool to aid a novice designers understanding of typography and design emerged. With that he suggested I look to some of the teaching methods outline in the HEA documentation for when I trained to become an Associate Fellow of the HEA.
We agreed that another discussion later on in the project would be helpful in evaluating the success of the project and I suggested I present my findings to him at the mid point presentation in June/July.
Currently I do not have access to the print room at university to be able to test how the blocks prints on a proofing press. So to make good use of the time I am endeavouring to continue to learn the relevant software as well as become confident in both the design of the body of the blocks and the way in which they will be printed.
Once I had progressed with learning the Tinkercad program I was able to produce a selection of test blocks suitable for letterpress printing. These were a square, triangle and M which I printed at an angle of 45degrees as based on both my primary and secondary research this was the optimum angle to minimise the stepped layering effecting the print. These were solid blocks with no infill.
I also printed these flat on the bed so that I could compare the different blocks and how they print once I have access to a proofing press. As with the tokens I printed flat, these were difficult to remove from the print bed though with them being larger I was able to leaver them off in a more controlled manner.
Circles
Though the test blocks I have printed so far appear to be visually accurate to the digital design, I need some way of testing how consistent their shape is from one block to the next as this will define how well they register with one anther if I am trying to create printed with multiple layers. To test this I have created 3 circles on 3 separate blocks. The circles are designed in a way so that they could be printed in the same place one at a time to create 3 impressions all on top of each other. If there is any variation in the placement of the resulting print that means that the blocks are not all completely inline with each other.
Hollowing out design
As I have mentioned previously, it is quite common for a 3d printed design to be hollow in some way to save on print time and materials. However this is more often the case for decorative elements that don’t need to be load bearing in some way. Some very large lead type is partially hollow at the base of the body to same on materials so there is a precedent for doing this historically. However lead is harder that the resin I am using, so the amount that I can hollow the body out will need testing.
I have produced 3 different blocks of type height cubes. One completely hollow, one solid and one with a pyramid shaped void at the base. It is my thinking that the pyramid base should still provide enough support when put under pressure, but also slightly reduce the amount of resin used. The other blocks will act as controls. When printing a hollowed out design there needs to be drainage holes added to the design. I have added these to the base of the designs as a long cylinder, with the orientation of these being towards the bottom of the block they will also allow me to know which way is up on blocks where the design of the block may be too abstract.
I purchased the Mars 2 alongside some further relevant materials. When a print is made it first needs to be cleaned off the excess resin with a relevant liquid (in the case of the water based resin I have purchased this is water), after that the print needs to be cured under ultraviolet light. Some people leave their prints outside to cure in the sun but with the current unpredictable weather and a need for the prints I create to be consistent across a range of prints I opted for a machine that will wash the print as well as cure it.
Elegoo Mars 2. (Elegoo 2021)
Tinkercad
While waiting for the order to arrive I endeavoured to learn more about the 3d design process but setting myself a series of tasks to complete in tinkercad, this was a method I utilised in the Digital Media unit and I found it very helpful to progress through the relevant tasks.
Tinkercad provides various short tutorials on how to create commonly made items. (Tinkercad 2021)
The tasks I set my self to complete were
Draw a square
Draw a cube
Set cube to 1inch x 1inch x 0.918inch (Type Height for letterpress printing)
Add letter to cube
Hollow cube
Support cube
Add drainage holes
Mars 2 3D Printer Calibration and Tests
Levelling the print bed of the Mars 2, the white rectangles on the rear of the machine are the extra carbon filters I purchased.
Once the printer arrived there were various assembling and calibrations to be done. Much of this is documented very well in the materials that come with the machine and after levelling the print bed I attempted my first print with the test model provided, a chess piece. While printing this piece I kept the space well ventilated and used gloves while handling resin. After a roughly 2 hours the piece had finished printing successfully and I washed and cured it using the wash/cure unit.
A time lapse of the rest model being printed
The finished models upside down on the print bed
Using the Wash/Cure unit to wash the prints in warm water. The Wash/Cure unit uses a vortex of water to remove excess uncured resin from the prints.
Once dried the models are placed in the Wash/Cure unit and the mode is changed to “cure” along with a timer being set. The machine rotates the models and shines uv light at them.
The final printed model after curing.
Testing the Test print
Structurally the piece is very solid, the resin doesn’t feel brittle and the surface feels relatively smooth to the touch. With being in lock down I have limited tools to test the durability of the print, however it withstood multiple drops onto a concrete floor without shattering which is important for a printing block as they can easily be knocked off a table in a print space.
Print Angles
The test piece was printed flat on the print bed but a technique that is often used for more complex prints is to angle them off the print with a series of thing supports holding the piece in the air. In his video “My favorite way to 3D print perfect resin bases for my minis. Something I discovered printing dice?” (2020), maker 3dprintedpro shows that the reason for this is that apparently when things are printed directly on the print bed they can be hard to remove, with so much of the print being in direct contact with the print bed. When the initial layers are attached to the bed they are intentionally overexposed to create a good adhesion to the print bed, this overexposure can cause a slight variation at the base of the print where the overexposed resin expands slightly. This is colloquially called “elephants foot”. Also for complex prints with overhanging parts when printed flat you run the risk of not it printing incorrectly if not angled and supported in the right manner.
With the print process taking a while and me not having any blocks designed for print yet, I downloaded a selection of coins/tokens/model bases (essentially flat objects with a design on one surface) with which I can experiment with print angles to see which method of printing will work best – flat on the bed or at an angle with supports.
Initial Tests
Angled Designs
I placed a selection of designs on the print bed and varied their angle of elevation, then placed supports around them to connect them to the bed. The prints were successful and similar to the eye, but when viewed closely you could see and feel a stepped pattern across the top surface of the token caused by the angle of the layers being printed. Interestingly prints that were only angled slightly from the print bed had the worst examples of stepping, with it be very pronounced even to the eye.
Flat Designs
Using the same token designs as the last experiment, I printed a selection flat on the print bed. With printing something so shallow the print was completed very quickly (around 25 minutes). However I found that when placed in the wash/cure unit to wash the prints that there was a lot of excess resin. The wash/cure unit cleans the print via creating a whirlpool of water that the print is placed into. Evidently, this doesn’t clean a print sufficiently when the design is shallow and on the print bed. For the next prints I will try cleaning the prints by hand in water with a small scrubbing brush. The quality of the prints was very good but they were very hard to remove from the print bed, to remove a print you lever it off with a metal tool much like a paint scraper. With so much force being exerted upon them, when they did separate from the bed they ricocheted off the cleaning surface and onto the floor, so some means of removing them from the bed needs to be considered if this is the way I choose to print future print.
Printing a Design as Veneers
With the flat design taking so little time to print, and my skills in Tinkercad progressing, I also experimented with printing a selection of thin designs that could be mounted onto a block of material (for instance mdf) to bring them to type height. My research shows that this is something that other printers have done, as shown in the previous post.
Though the print was ready very quicky the resulting prints were so thin that once cured and dry they have warped and curled. I tried heating them in warm water and clamping them to correct this but the prints remained unsuitable for printing.
It is my hope with this project that I can devise a method of production that minimises the amount of post production needed before printing with the blocks. Printing a design as a veneer in this way and then mounting it was always going to have involved accurately cutting and mounting them on to wood. Something that in the current lockdown with minimal access to tools will be very difficult so I will progress with my aims of accurately printing a type height block.
References
3DPRINTINGPRO, 2020. My favorite way to 3D print perfect resin bases for my minis. Something I discovered printing dice? [viewed March 7, 2021].
My analysis of the threats and opportunities the medium presents has yielded some questions that I will answer via some further research.
How strong are resin prints? Will they crack if put under pressure?
In the video by the maker Thomas Sanladerer, “Is resin 3D printing worth it?” (2021) he poses a similar question and conducts various forms of research to compare the SLA and FDM print processes. From this research it would appear that when force is applied perpendicular to the direction the layers of the resin that distortion and compression is minimal. The relative hardness and whether a 3d printed block will crack is harder to answer through secondary research as there are many different types of resin with different properties (clear, matt, “plastic like”). I do know, from my own primary research into the letterpress printing process in the proposal stage, that the amount of excess force exerted on a block is low. Metal type and wood type are not hard materials and dent easily, blocks from these materials do not deform or break except if used in an incorrect manner on the press.
New software to learn
After discussions with classmates and relevant technicians at the University, a few different programs were suggested. There are paid options like Autodesk and Sketchup and free versions such as Blender and Tinkercad. The paid options appear to be too extensive for what I aim to produce, being more suited to complex 3D shapes. Tinkercad appears to be able to very quickly produce simple shapes in the correct file type for printing.
How much does the resin smell and are there any safety concerns?
Looking at the various resins available and reading their safety sheets, all would appear to need to be used in well ventilated areas and to use gloves when handling them. Some resins are cleaned with alcohols (either isopropanol or methylated spirits) whilst others are water based and cleaned with water. In the current pandemic isopropanol alcohol has become very expensive which seems to indicate water based is a more economical option. Water based resins also are noted to be low odour. Some models such as the Elegoo Mars 2 pro has a built in carbon filter, Elegoo also produce a rechargeable carbon filtration unit that can be used with any printer (Elegoo 2021). Maker, Uncle Jesse, reviews an integrated Wash/Cure unit produced by Elegoo that appears to make the washing and curing process much easier and cleaner (2020).
How long does a print take?
In order to print a model with a 3D printer the file needs to be sliced into layers via slicing software. Many printers make use of a free slicer called Chitubox, this software also gives an estimate of how long the print will take. I have downloaded and inputted a simple 1 inch cube model created in Tinkercad and the print time is stated as being 1 hour 4 mins. This time would be the same whether you filled the print bed with designs or whether you were just printing one, it would only extend the time if the print was made taller due to the fact the prints are made layer by layer.
How much will a solid block 1inch cubed cost? Will it be uneconomical to do a selection of letters in this way?
Chitubox also allows the user to input the cost of the resin you plan to use and then generate a cost estimate based on the volume the print will use up. A solid 1inch cube is estimated at £0.76 when using waterbased resin. When 3D printing a large model it is quite common to hollow out the piece to use less material so there maybe a way to do this to minimise the resin used but still create strong prints.
There appears to be various models and makes of printers available, which is the most suitable?
3D printer technology is in a continuous state of improvement, with models of printers being superseded by new models every quarter and old models being discontinued. This has made researching what is the most suitable difficult as review videos quickly go out of date. Most machines are made in China and imported into the UK via the EU so this has also made sourcing a machine difficult. Most commercially available have a similar sized build plate and overall size, the differentiation seems come from the speed of the print and the quality of the LCD screen (3dnatives.com 2021). At the time of writing the brand Elegoo have just released the Mars 2, confusingly this is a newer model than the previous Mars 2 Pro. The Mars 2 appears to be the most suitable, it has a high quality screen with a fast print size. It also has a rubber gasket around the shell to keep fumes inside and space for carbon air filters.
References
CHAN, N., 2020. Elegoo Mars 2 Pro $300 Resin 3D Printer Review![viewed Feb 14, 2021]. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AWWRP12hGw&ab_channel=AdamSavage%E2%80%99sTested
ELEGOO, 2020. How the Air Purifier Performs on ELEGOO Mars 2 Pro Printer [viewed Feb 17, 2021]. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJsFSNYjzMc&ab_channel=ElegooOfficial
ELEGOO, 2021. Mars Series LCD Printers 2021]. Available from: https://www.elegoo.com/collections/mars-series https://www.elegoo.com/collections/mars-series https://www.elegoo.com/collections/mars-series
ELEGOO Mercury Plus 2 in 1 Washing and Curing Machine Review | Resin 3D Printing Cleaning 2020. [viewed Feb 17, 2021]. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0_2wwVgDEo&ab_channel=UncleJessy
ENFOY, A., 2020. 17 Best 3D Printing Software of 2021 (CAD and Modeling Tools) 2021]. Available from: https://www.adamenfroy.com/3d-printing-software
MENSLEY, M., 2021. 2021 Best Budget Resin 3D Printers (January) 2021]. Available from: https://all3dp.com/1/best-resin-dlp-sla-3d-printer-kit-stereolithography/
SANLADERER, T., 2019. Is resin 3D printing worth it? (Elegoo Mars Review) [viewed Feb 13, 2021]. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrglNNw5A8Q
SANLADERER, T., 2020a. 3D Printing Basics: Resin Printers! (Ep3) [viewed Feb 17, 2021]. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TZ2R88rPoo
SANLADERER, T., 2020b. Elegoo Mars (2 Pro): Which one is the best resin printer?[viewed Feb 17, 2021]. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yZ4KiK_pl0
VEGOILGUY, 2020. Elegoo Mars 2 Pro HONEST review + Mars original comparison – by VOG (VegOilGuy) [viewed Feb 15, 2021]. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Qq33YeFCLg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Qq33YeFCLg
What 3D resin printers are available in 2021?2021. [viewed Feb 13, 2021]. Available from: https://www.3dnatives.com/en/top-10-resin-3d-printers280320174/
