Mike Young wrote:
> That's a little too far over the top. From a complexity and startup cost
> point of view, the choice is rather simple:
>
> ∗∗ cost of a UV box, versus cost of a laminator;
> ∗∗ cost of sensitized pre-clad or laminant, versus cost of transfer paper;
> ∗∗ cost and dimensional stability of mylar or acetate, versus short-term
> stability of card stock backed transfer paper.
> ∗∗ cost of developer, versus cost of plain water to remove transfer paper;
> ∗∗ reusability of acetate or mylar, versus one-shot nature of transfer
> paper;
> ∗∗ inkjet or plotter on hand, versus laserjet on hand.
>
Good comparison. I can add.
∗ learning curve finding a good inkjet transparency/ink combo verses
finding good TT paper.
∗ added mess of photoresist developer verses stripping paper from copper.
The choice depends on what process your are currently familiar with and
what quality you desire. The ∗potential∗ quality of photo method will
always be greater than TT method. If you cannot get expected results
with TT then switch to the photo method. If TT is working for you then
why change and go through a whole new leaning curve. If your starting
out then you have to weigh up the pros/cons of each. IMO both have a
similar degree of learning. As for subject tile of $500 UV light boxes,
that surly indicates to me a novice's conception of the photo method.
Adam