I agree one should decide which method fits their needs, and that
will depend on a number of things, as how many boards do you make,
do you make a number of the same board, available space, etc. If you
are making a number of the same boards then the same transpancy can
be used over and over and over.
Myself I like the positive photo method, where as Steffan (hope a
spelled it right) likes the TT method and seems to get very good
results from it. I make a lot of the same boards over and over
where as I think Steffan may do more one of a kind boards.
Either process takes time to learn the different exposure times or
amount and time of heat. Type of printer you have, and what paper
works best with your printer and your transfer method that you have
decided to do. If you have a laser print TT most likely is your
best bet. If you have a good inkjet then positive photo method
maybe your best bet.
Ben
> I have spent more time trying, with little success, to get decent
> photoboards than TT, the problems work the other way around too.
> I do know what some of the mistakes were, and i have no doubt i
could have
> gotten it right if i put in more effort.
>
> For your situation photoprocess may well be better, but there are
several
> strong points in favour of TT:
>
> Low cost of PCB material (or no cost and effort of sensitizing).
> No shelf-life limit of PCB stock, i do few boards (a couple a
week) and
> prefer to buy bulk.
> Speed of production (not even with a professional exposure frame
and
> developer tank was i able to make small boards faster).
> No inkjet required (for me maintaining an inkjet is a nightmare,
the major
> annoyance with direct inkjet printing).
> No chemicals other than water and etchant required.
> Photo paper is only about the same cost as transparencies.
> Component legend capability (90% or more of my boards have
component
> legend, how would i make that with photo?).
>
> Both processes are reliable, and produce good results. I don't
think one
> can reliably predict where someone would have more trouble. You
can make
> mistakes with both. The right tools must be used, and the right
materials,
> and the right procedure, then both will work just fine, if you do
not do
> that both processes will fail just as miserably.
>
> I don't think one should decide which process to use by following
a single
> opinion, it is well established here that both methods work and
none is
> always easier. I think one should look at the needs (quantity, one-
offs or
> series, space, investment, ... many more) and then decide which
method is
> more suitable. It does IMO not make much sense to try to get by
without
> minimal gear (for example working with a clothes iron is just as
> unreliable as not using a proper exposure device), so one should
set up
> properly from the start. Look at it in detail, decide which is
more
> suitable for yourself, and then stick with it and get it to work.
I don't
> think there is any excuse for not getting either process to work
reliably,
> because there are just too many people using them with good
results. In
> other words, if it didn't work, it's your fault and not the
process. One
> should decide on the merits of the one or the other, not on some
worry it
> might not work, both _WILL_ work with enough attention to detail.
>
> ST
>