Archive of the former Yahoo!Groups mailing list: Homebrew PCBs

----- Original Message -----
From: "derekhawkins" <derekhawkins@...>
To: <Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 4:37 PM
Subject: [Homebrew_PCBs] Re: A $500.00 "UV" non-trivial exposure box.....


> >The workflow for both the top vs. bottom (or bottom vs. top) are
>>identical.
>
> So if you had to do 5 boards you would have to do the following steps
> 5 times, once for each board;

The same would seem to apply to photo resist. Drill it; align artwork;
expose/laminate; develop/strip the paper backing. The step-by-step for photo
would seem to be longer.

In my mind, photo resist is still coming up short. There are more variables,
more opportunities for error, more equipment to acquire, maintain, and
adjust. And more junk in the sewers (not that I lose sleep over what my
neighbors might be doing or not).

All that aside, the quality of the artwork would seem to be paramount. The
laserjet prints very clean, very crisp edges. Filled areas are very dense
black and consistent. The Epson 1280 (28800 dpi) only manages a fuzzy edge,
not crisp at all, and not nearly as dense. If both are available, I expect
you would choose the laserjet. And if you're printing on the laserjet
anyway, why not go straight to the board for the onesie-twosie?

Actually, I didn't intend to seem so polarized. I'm asking it as a question,
as a newbie with no experience with photo, and only very little with TT.
What is the advantage of photo-resist compared to toner transfer?