Techniques for finishing box-pleated models

dahlia · Post by **dahlia** » September 16th, 2009, 6:44 pm

Hi all. I think I'm a pretty decent folder, but I've gotten to the point where I feel like I need some help refining some of my techniques. One area where I keep feeling unsatisfied is the finishing steps of box pleated models. I can solve crease patterns, get the base folded with the various appendages sticking out, but then, no matter what I try, I can't seem to get those glorious wings, detailed fingers (or talons), or layered draped clothing that I see on other people's finished models. I was wondering if anyone would be willing to share some hints on these techniques.

Thanks!
-Dahlia

Sunburst · Post by **Sunburst** » September 16th, 2009, 8:22 pm

Well, what I usually do regarding the shaping of boxpleated models is to take full advantage of the layers. With wings, for example, spread out the layers as much as you can and then shape them however you want. Also note that since most boxpleated models can only be made from crease patterns, it is very rare that you will know exactly where to fold beyond the base. As such, the shaping part will almost always be left to your own interpretation and skills.

origamimasterjared · September 16th, 2009, 9:19 pm

Use bigger paper. That's likely your main problem.

Edit:

I'll elaborate.

When you fold a box-pleated figure, you are often dealing with 24x24, 32x32, 48x48, 64x64 grids right? With 32 x 32 probably being the most common. This means that when you get to the base, the flaps are only 1/32 of the side of the square. The flaps are also in a shape that seems a bit unnatural, so now they need to be shaped. Normally this involves making the flaps even narrower than they already are. If you want those flaps to be just a half inch wide, you need 32 x 1/2= 16 inch paper. If you want them to be an inch you'd need a 32 x 32 square! And that's just for 32nds. Let alone 64ths, 80ths, 96ths, etc. (those last two being Ryuzins). A lot of the pieces you see online are folded from large squares, often of kraft paper, 20 inches (50 cm) or more.

That's what I mean when I say use bigger paper.

dahlia · Post by **dahlia** » September 17th, 2009, 3:38 pm

Thanks for the suggestions. I know that a lot is left to individual interpretation & "sculpting," esp. with box-pleating. I just seem unable to do it as nicely as I like and feel like maybe I'm missing some technique. The larger paper might definitely help--I tend to use home-MC treated papers for these models--but usually about 15 inches square, so maybe bumping up to 20 inches will give me more room to maneuver.

Maybe I'll post some pictures of where I'm feeling inadequate and see if that sparks any ideas...
-Dahlia

Wizmatt · Post by **Wizmatt** » September 17th, 2009, 7:05 pm

Maybe you should try with foil paper / tissue foil. It is so much easier to shape and thin than with MC. Then when you're practised enough go back to natural papers.

Ondrej.Cibulka · Post by **Ondrej.Cibulka** » September 18th, 2009, 8:42 am

Problem is not if one can or cannot technically make something with paper (too small or too big). Problem is what make with that flap to obtain five thin fingers, plates on the belly, thin sword with handle, fan in the hand etc.

legionzilla · Post by **legionzilla** » September 18th, 2009, 11:37 am

I'm no box-pleating guy (My box pleating really is crap), but here are a few tips. Most of the hyper-detailed models take at least 6 hrs to fold (example, Siph Mab's Mantis, the base is not too hard to fold, but the detailing is really alot), thus, you need alot of time at hand.
Secondly, you would need really good quality paper (which I don't have, lol). To make those sleeves and minute details, you usually need a paper of thickness of below 50 gsm.
Thirdly, you should first learn the techniques of how to achieve wings and sleeves indivisually, as similar techniques are used in most models. For example wings of flying birds are ususally the same, save a few like Kenny's eagle.

Hope this helps.

EDIT: I can't comfirm whether Kenny's eagle is box-pleated, so I will use Cephalopod's rooster as the example instead.

dahlia · Post by **dahlia** » September 18th, 2009, 2:11 pm

Ondrej, I think, understands where I'm stuck. But everyone has some great suggestions. I hope to have some time this weekend to do some folding with MC/tissue paper and tissue/foil to see whether I do better with the foil. I sometimes feel like using tissue foil is cheating a little bit because in the end, you can just squeeze the fingers really hard, they're thin, and you're done--without folding. It's more like sculpting than origami. I also like the stiffness of real paper when doing sinks, etc.

Anyway, I'll try to post some pics after the weekend of my problem spots.

thanks so much!
-dahlia

legionzilla · Post by **legionzilla** » September 18th, 2009, 3:13 pm

Actually, you could say that the detailing of collapsed models is alot like sculpting- just look at joisel's stunning models!

Sunburst · Post by **Sunburst** » September 18th, 2009, 5:23 pm

I disagree regarding shaping complex models being considered as sculpting. While you are giving the paper the form you want, folds are still required to do so. For example, when you want a curved wing or a round body, you will often have to do crimps to obtain these forms since they don't occur naturally with paper. As for «squeezing» details such as fingers, you're probably doing so because they are so small. As such, a precise, bissecting fold is practically impossible to do.
By the way, if you plan on using tissue foil, remember to take your time and don't rush things up (especially with sinks) if you want to have a good result.

WhisperPuffin · Post by **WhisperPuffin** » September 19th, 2009, 9:27 am

That was unexpected coming from you, Sunburst. Your models are all beautifully and artistically shaped and moulded into an extremely "sculpted" shape, much like Joisel's models but different stylistically. I would have thought you would be talking on the flipside!

Anyway, as much as you would like advice on how to shape, dahlia, as opposed to paper, I have to agree that paper choice is 99.9 percent of most complex boxpleated models. A good, thin, paper such as tissue foil in a large size over 50cm by 50cm will give you so much more opportunities for artistic shaping and it will be far easier to work out how to shape a bunch of inorganic looking flaps into those elegantly jointed little fingers or long, flowing robes that Takashi-san (Hojyo-san?) does so well. It also helps with working out more complicated things because the base is large enough for you to see which flap is the wing, or the leg, etc.

Hope this advice is what you were looking for.

legionzilla · Post by **legionzilla** » September 20th, 2009, 9:36 am

Always remember, even if you have to squeeze your foil so as to make it thin, as long as it looks great, that counts! After all, squeezing is not a 'disallowed' method in purist origami as you are not breaking any rules.
Though I seldom use squeezing in box pleating, I find it completely necessary in some pieces as I lack the right paper, so remember, there are no rules in making origami look nice (except, remember to abide to the purist rules), so just go for it. Good luck!

Ondrej.Cibulka · September 20th, 2009, 10:11 am

Squeezing? I use squeezing on 3D data matrix to produce 2D data matrix in MatLab...

Jonnycakes · Post by **Jonnycakes** » September 20th, 2009, 7:34 pm

As Sunburst hinted at, "squeezing" can be done with traditional folding, too. For many insect legs, squeezing can be replaced by a rabbit ear and mountain folds. There are a lot of other, subtler kinds of shaping that make all the difference, though (as long as you aren't folding an insect

). Subtle, curved folds are what make a box-pleated model not look boxy. Tissue foil makes that easy, since everything stays where you would like it to. With non-foil paper, wet-folding is the answer. It is very difficult, but wet-folding can get you the gorgeous organic shapes that the masters do.