I don’t know about you, but lighting greatly impacts how the surface quality of my prints look. Hard/direct light at a steep vertical angle makes the faces look pretty rough, but more diffuse light coming from the side makes the parts look great.
It’s normal, but I think it’s more visible the thicker your layers are. I’ve also seen a respected 3d printing content creator use this effect to make his sponsored brand (Creality) look like it has higher print quality than the competitor… If you’re printing with ASA, perhaps you could use some light acetone smoothing if you want a more even surface?
This is disappointing. Not because it’s normal, but because so many photos of prints you see on the web extolling print quality are in ideal lighting. It’s misleading at best. I will say surface quality is oodles ahead of my old I3 clone, but this has always miffed me.
I think it’s more visible the thicker your layers are
I do tend to print in chunkier layers. Also thicker extrusions and nozzles…
If you’re printing with ASA, perhaps you could use some light acetone smoothing
It doesn’t really bother me as my prints are functional, but there’s always been this nagging thing in the back of my head regarding surface quality relative to what folks on the internet present they achieve. The photo in this post is guilty of this TBH. The print looks way worse on the bed thanks to a taller printer with top mounted lights resulting in a steep lighting angle relative to vertical surfaces. It’s like going on a picturesque trip only to find out that all the photos you’ve seen online take a lot of liberty with timing (ie super early/late in the day) and/or framing.
It’s normal, but I think it’s more visible the thicker your layers are. I’ve also seen a respected 3d printing content creator use this effect to make his sponsored brand (Creality) look like it has higher print quality than the competitor… If you’re printing with ASA, perhaps you could use some light acetone smoothing if you want a more even surface?
This is disappointing. Not because it’s normal, but because so many photos of prints you see on the web extolling print quality are in ideal lighting. It’s misleading at best. I will say surface quality is oodles ahead of my old I3 clone, but this has always miffed me.
I do tend to print in chunkier layers. Also thicker extrusions and nozzles…
It doesn’t really bother me as my prints are functional, but there’s always been this nagging thing in the back of my head regarding surface quality relative to what folks on the internet present they achieve. The photo in this post is guilty of this TBH. The print looks way worse on the bed thanks to a taller printer with top mounted lights resulting in a steep lighting angle relative to vertical surfaces. It’s like going on a picturesque trip only to find out that all the photos you’ve seen online take a lot of liberty with timing (ie super early/late in the day) and/or framing.