Homebrew PCBs

This is basically just an FYI post, I know it reads like an 
advertisement but I have  NO connection with the company except being
a happy customer. 

If you are one of those people who use Photosensitive boards to
produce your PCBs, and you are using the 3M, Epson or other Inkjet 
Transparency media to make films, (positive / negative). 
You may want to take a look at this 
( http://screenprinters.net/product_group.php?gid=inkjetfilm ). 

I have used this material with an old Epson Stylus 1160 and obtained
what I consider to be exceptional results compared to the other films
I have tried (also used with Stylus 660, results were not as good but 
were useable). Unlike other films I have used which have a coating to
provide a tooth for the ink to bind to but take quite some time for
the ink to dry and allow for ink "pooling" causing non uniformity in
coverage, the coating on the film (above link) absorbs the ink almost
immediately. The coating acts as if it is some sort of gelatin which
soaks in the ink as it is laid onto the material.

My printer settings have been, Highest Density, Glossy Photo Paper,
High Speed = OFF, & whatever else I would normally use for a FINAL 
Photo Quality  Print.

scratch_6057 wrote:
> This is basically just an FYI post, I know it reads like an 
> advertisement but I have  NO connection with the company except being
> a happy customer. 
> 
> If you are one of those people who use Photosensitive boards to
> produce your PCBs, and you are using the 3M, Epson or other Inkjet 
> Transparency media to make films, (positive / negative). 
> You may want to take a look at this 
> ( http://screenprinters.net/product_group.php?gid=inkjetfilm ). 
> 
> I have used this material with an old Epson Stylus 1160 and obtained
> what I consider to be exceptional results compared to the other films
> I have tried (also used with Stylus 660, results were not as good but 
> were useable). Unlike other films I have used which have a coating to
> provide a tooth for the ink to bind to but take quite some time for
> the ink to dry and allow for ink "pooling" causing non uniformity in
> coverage, the coating on the film (above link) absorbs the ink almost
> immediately. The coating acts as if it is some sort of gelatin which
> soaks in the ink as it is laid onto the material.

Is this the non-waterproof film?

The gelatine coated stuff is what the genuine epson inkjet film was anyway.
The HP, canon, and others all used that cruddy sand-paper film.

> My printer settings have been, Highest Density, Glossy Photo Paper,
> High Speed = OFF, & whatever else I would normally use for a FINAL 
> Photo Quality  Print.

Been doing this easy stuff for 5+ years.

----- Original Message ----- 

From: "scratch_6057" <dml.empsrch@...>
To: <Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 2:20 PM
Subject: [Homebrew_PCBs] Inkjet Transparency Material


> This is basically just an FYI post, I know it reads like an
> advertisement but I have  NO connection with the company except being
> a happy customer.
>
> If you are one of those people who use Photosensitive boards to
> produce your PCBs, and you are using the 3M, Epson or other Inkjet
> Transparency media to make films, (positive / negative).
> You may want to take a look at this
> ( http://screenprinters.net/product_group.php?gid=inkjetfilm ).
>
> I have used this material with an old Epson Stylus 1160 and obtained
> what I consider to be exceptional results compared to the other films
> I have tried (also used with Stylus 660, results were not as good but
> were useable). Unlike other films I have used which have a coating to
> provide a tooth for the ink to bind to but take quite some time for
> the ink to dry and allow for ink "pooling" causing non uniformity in
> coverage, the coating on the film (above link) absorbs the ink almost
> immediately. The coating acts as if it is some sort of gelatin which
> soaks in the ink as it is laid onto the material.
>
> My printer settings have been, Highest Density, Glossy Photo Paper,
> High Speed = OFF, & whatever else I would normally use for a FINAL
> Photo Quality  Print.

I get superb transparencies with Mega Electronics Jetstar Premium film in an 
HP 5940 printer.

Leon

Hi,

As I understood, you print on this film with black ink
and then pose with UV. So there is no need to buy
waterproof version?

Did you use dry film, and laminate the PCB?

Best,

Dr.


--- scratch_6057 <dml.empsrch@...> wrote:

> This is basically just an FYI post, I know it reads
> like an 
> advertisement but I have  NO connection with the
> company except being
> a happy customer. 
> 
> If you are one of those people who use
> Photosensitive boards to
> produce your PCBs, and you are using the 3M, Epson
> or other Inkjet 
> Transparency media to make films, (positive /
> negative). 
> You may want to take a look at this 
> (
>
http://screenprinters.net/product_group.php?gid=inkjetfilm
> ). 
> 
> I have used this material with an old Epson Stylus
> 1160 and obtained
> what I consider to be exceptional results compared
> to the other films
> I have tried (also used with Stylus 660, results
> were not as good but 
> were useable). Unlike other films I have used which
> have a coating to
> provide a tooth for the ink to bind to but take
> quite some time for
> the ink to dry and allow for ink "pooling" causing
> non uniformity in
> coverage, the coating on the film (above link)
> absorbs the ink almost
> immediately. The coating acts as if it is some sort
> of gelatin which
> soaks in the ink as it is laid onto the material.
> 
> My printer settings have been, Highest Density,
> Glossy Photo Paper,
> High Speed = OFF, & whatever else I would normally
> use for a FINAL 
> Photo Quality  Print.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com

>The coating acts as if it is some sort of gelatin which
>soaks in the ink as it is laid onto the material.

Similar to Epson's film at 1/3 the price. Worth a shot, thanks for the 
link.

--- In Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com, "scratch_6057" <dml.empsrch@...> 
wrote:
>

Russell Shaw
> Is this the non-waterproof film?

The seller has a waterproof film that is a little more $$. 
The link is for the NON waterproof variety that I have 
been using.

>The gelatin coated stuff is what the genuine Epson inkjet film was 
anyway.
>The HP, canon, and others all used that cruddy sand-paper film.

If memory serves the 3M is the "sand-paper" film also, that's what
I was referring to about a tooth for the ink to bind to AFTER the ink
dried but in my experience there were ink "pooling"  problems. 
Same story with "AVERY"  (the label people) and "COPY FX" 
film from "Letraset". The only other RETAIL transparency film
that I ever had any decent luck with was "BURLINGTON" from
Paris Business Products, but I've been told it is out of production.

>Been doing this easy stuff for 5+ years.
So have I, it's nothing new to me, my (fragmented) graphic arts
experience goes back to the late `70s. Just posting for some who
may not have had similar experiences.

Bora Dikmen

>As I understood, you print on this film with black ink
>and then pose with UV. So there is no need to buy
>waterproof version?

As I understand this question, you are correct, Print, lay film and 
board in contact with one another, expose. 

The (dry) INK should be in direct contact with the photosensitive
board surface. For solder side a regular print works, If you are
printing a (top) component side your image needs to be MIRRORED
before you print it. If you sandwich things in such a way that the 
thickness of the film is between the pattern image (ink) and the 
photosensitive (board) surface then you will end up getting some 
light leakage around the pattern edges.

I have not used the waterproof film, I personally see no need for
the added expense, except for the possible archival transparency
if I planed on producing large numbers of the same board over an 
extended period of time. At that point I would seriously consider
REAL Litho films from Gerbers or send the files to a board house. 

>Did you use dry film, and laminate the PCB?

At this point, I'm using the more expensive pre coated board material,
the main reason being ease of access, (3 retail suppliers in my area).

>Did you use dry film, and laminate the PCB?

"At this point, I'm using the more expensive pre
coated board material, the main reason being ease of
access, (3 retail suppliers in my area)."

What is the minimum reliable trace width with these
pre-coated board material? 6 mils possible?

Best,

Dr.



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com

----- Original Message ----- 

From: "Bora Dikmen" <bora_dikmen@...>
To: <Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2006 6:58 AM
Subject: [Homebrew_PCBs] Inkjet Transparency Material


> >Did you use dry film, and laminate the PCB?
>
> "At this point, I'm using the more expensive pre
> coated board material, the main reason being ease of
> access, (3 retail suppliers in my area)."
>
> What is the minimum reliable trace width with these
> pre-coated board material? 6 mils possible?

I can get 5 mils for text, but I'm not sure how reliable it is for tracks. 
I've tried two short test tracks between 0.1" IC pads, and they were OK. 
High-res resist is available for the pre-coated boards I use, and might be 
better.

Leon

>What is the minimum reliable trace width with these
> pre-coated board material? 6 mils possible?



I run two traces in between .100" pads all the time and "never" had an issue.
I use the GC Positive Pre-sensitived Boards and their developer.  Works great, cost a tad more.

Richard


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>What is the minimum reliable trace width with these
>pre-coated board material? 6 mils possible?

I've found the limitation to be the inkjet printer. Here's a 6X6 rules 
torture test;

http://www.pbase.com/eldata/6_6_rules

The printer could not handle identical 5X5 artwork without defects so I 
never tried it. However, less demanding real world 5X5 rules or less 
shouldn't be a problem.

--- In Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com, Bora Dikmen <bora_dikmen@...> 
wrote:
>

Hello!

I am following this nice group for a while. This is my first post.

I've got old X/Y coordinate table which used to be simple pick and place 
machine. There's no Z axis and mechanics is not strong enough for 
holding any machine with drill or mill tools. One crazy idea crossed my 
mind... what if I put one UV light source to this machine and plot with 
UV light directly to photoresist coated FR4? I can make small optical 
mask with (e.g.) 10 mils aperture, which floats on thin air blowing 
beneath the mask. It could act as single (fixed) aperture photoplotter 
for direct exposure of PCB photoresist.... Is this kind of stupid idea? 
Anyone had experience with that?  Would be UV LED enough? Exposure time 
is critical here, but I am talking about PCB prototyping.

Any comments?

Regards!
Marko

I actually use a laserjet to do mine, I had problems with over exposure on the inkjets because they apprently let some light thru.

Richard

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: derekhawkins 
  To: Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2006 7:55 AM
  Subject: [Homebrew_PCBs] Re: Inkjet Transparency Material


  >What is the minimum reliable trace width with these
  >pre-coated board material? 6 mils possible?

  I've found the limitation to be the inkjet printer. Here's a 6X6 rules 
  torture test;

  http://www.pbase.com/eldata/6_6_rules

  The printer could not handle identical 5X5 artwork without defects so I 
  never tried it. However, less demanding real world 5X5 rules or less 
  shouldn't be a problem.

  --- In Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com, Bora Dikmen <bora_dikmen@...> 
  wrote:
  >



   

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>I actually use a laserjet to do mine, I had problems with over 
>exposure on the inkjets because they apprently let some light thru.

Typically, it's the laserjet that suffers from opacity issues and 
pinholes when using transparencies. 

--- In Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com, "Richard" <rwskinner@...> wrote:
>

----- Original Message ----- 

From: "derekhawkins" <eldata@...>
To: <Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2006 7:12 PM
Subject: [Homebrew_PCBs] Re: Inkjet Transparency Material


> >I actually use a laserjet to do mine, I had problems with over
>>exposure on the inkjets because they apprently let some light thru.
>
> Typically, it's the laserjet that suffers from opacity issues and
> pinholes when using transparencies.

That's what I've found, as well. My inkjet transparencies are much denser 
than I get with a laser printer.

Leon

A UV LED would probably not be enough, but a UV Laser would. Unfortunately,
the UV Laser will be quite expensive. There may be some other UV source that
would work.

Neil

On 12/20/06, Marko Pavlin (home) <mp@...> wrote:
>
>   Hello!
>
> I am following this nice group for a while. This is my first post.
>
> I've got old X/Y coordinate table which used to be simple pick and place
> machine. There's no Z axis and mechanics is not strong enough for
> holding any machine with drill or mill tools. One crazy idea crossed my
> mind... what if I put one UV light source to this machine and plot with
> UV light directly to photoresist coated FR4? I can make small optical
> mask with (e.g.) 10 mils aperture, which floats on thin air blowing
> beneath the mask. It could act as single (fixed) aperture photoplotter
> for direct exposure of PCB photoresist.... Is this kind of stupid idea?
> Anyone had experience with that? Would be UV LED enough? Exposure time
> is critical here, but I am talking about PCB prototyping.
>
> Any comments?
>
> Regards!
> Marko
>  
>



-- 
http://www.pixpopuli.com


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On Wed, 20 Dec 2006, Marko Pavlin (home) wrote:

> Hello!
>
> I am following this nice group for a while. This is my first post.
>
> I've got old X/Y coordinate table which used to be simple pick and place
> machine. There's no Z axis and mechanics is not strong enough for
> holding any machine with drill or mill tools. One crazy idea crossed my
> mind... what if I put one UV light source to this machine and plot with
> UV light directly to photoresist coated FR4? I can make small optical
> mask with (e.g.) 10 mils aperture, which floats on thin air blowing
> beneath the mask. It could act as single (fixed) aperture photoplotter
> for direct exposure of PCB photoresist.... Is this kind of stupid idea?
> Anyone had experience with that?  Would be UV LED enough? Exposure time
> is critical here, but I am talking about PCB prototyping.

The field of homebreweing PCBs is full of nutty ideas, some of which work.
I'd call this nutty, but definitely not stupid.  It's worth some
investigation to see if it's feasable.


-- 
David Griffith
dgriffi@...

A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?

I guess the sensible thing to do would be to get some UV LEDs and some
boards and do some experiments. If it worked it would be better than masking
or milling. Since you can't find any print shops any more that will make a
good film negative or positive it's really hard to make a decent mask.
--
Phil Mattison
http://www.ohmikron.com/

----- Original Message -----
From: Marko Pavlin (home) <mp@...>
To: <Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2006 8:10 AM
Subject: [Homebrew_PCBs] UV photoplotter


> Hello!
>
> I am following this nice group for a while. This is my first post.
>
> I've got old X/Y coordinate table which used to be simple pick and place
> machine. There's no Z axis and mechanics is not strong enough for
> holding any machine with drill or mill tools. One crazy idea crossed my
> mind... what if I put one UV light source to this machine and plot with
> UV light directly to photoresist coated FR4? I can make small optical
> mask with (e.g.) 10 mils aperture, which floats on thin air blowing
> beneath the mask. It could act as single (fixed) aperture photoplotter
> for direct exposure of PCB photoresist.... Is this kind of stupid idea?
> Anyone had experience with that?  Would be UV LED enough? Exposure time
> is critical here, but I am talking about PCB prototyping.
>
> Any comments?
>
> Regards!
> Marko
>
>
> Be sure to visit the group home and check for new Links, Files, and
Photos:

> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Homebrew_PCBs
>
> If Files or Photos are running short of space, post them here:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Homebrew_PCBs_Archives/
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

> > Hello!
> >
> > I am following this nice group for a while. This is my first post.
> >
> > I've got old X/Y coordinate table which used to be simple pick and 
> > place machine. There's no Z axis and mechanics is not strong enough 
> > for holding any machine with drill or mill tools. One crazy idea 
> > crossed my mind... what if I put one UV light source to 
> this machine 
> > and plot with UV light directly to photoresist coated FR4? 
> I can make 
> > small optical mask with (e.g.) 10 mils aperture, which 
> floats on thin 
> > air blowing beneath the mask. It could act as single 
> (fixed) aperture 
> > photoplotter for direct exposure of PCB photoresist.... Is 
> this kind of stupid idea?
> > Anyone had experience with that?  Would be UV LED enough? Exposure 
> > time is critical here, but I am talking about PCB prototyping.
> 
> The field of homebreweing PCBs is full of nutty ideas, some 
> of which work.
> I'd call this nutty, but definitely not stupid.  It's worth 
> some investigation to see if it's feasable.


It's already been done.  Works well actually, definitely not nutty.

There's a web page out there somewhere of one that was home made, but there
are commercial versions.  If I recall he attached the film to a cylinder
(which rotated) and the laser was moved across it.  Like a lathe works.

Years ago (like 1990) I worked for a company that did bar code stuff.  One
thing we did was film masters & bromides for bar codes.  These were sent to
the printers who used them to print the product packaging.

The machine was an X-Y plotter with a laser, drew the images on a piece of
film which you then developed.  Very nice sharp lines, very accurate too.

Downsides are it's a bit slow compared to a printer, and you need to have a
darkroom.

Controlled by a BBC micro, of all things!

Tony

It seems to me that I remember (many years ago) that there was a 
"coordinatograph" type machine that we used
in the microwave design lab that did something like what is proposed 
here.  The difference would be that in the
device I recall, the "media" was like litho film.   A light source moved 
across the surface of the litho film, tracing
a microwave stripline configuration that was transferred to the film, 
the geometry of the stripline configuration
having been programmed into the "coordinatograph" in X/Y coordinates. 

The litho film negative that was produced was many times the size of the 
actual stripline.  A photographic
reduction process was used to establish the actual stripline size. The 
advantage appeared to be that the
actual stripline dimensions were very accurate due to the photographic 
reduction process.

I think the photoreduction process was, at one time, quite common in the 
microelectronics industry
in making masks for integrated circuit fabrication.  No doubt, other 
techniques are used nowadays.

There are some rather powerful UV LED's available.  Check out the UV 
LED's in the latest
BG Micro online catalog at the URL below.

http://bgmicro.com/

Others on the list are probably familiar with the above described technique.

Roland F. Harriston



> ___

--- In Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com, "Richard" <rwskinner@...> wrote:
>
> I actually use a laserjet to do mine, I had problems with over 
exposure on the inkjets because they apprently let some light thru.
> 
> Richard
> 

I can only envision a few instances where a Laser would give
better opacity results than an inkjet.

A)  Transparency film used is for Laser ONLY. Inkjet ink
    "pools" or "puddles"

B)  Inkjet in DRAFT mode, I seem to recall some printers that
    would "lock" into draft when the ink hit a certain low quantity
    level remaining in the cartridge. Possibly a corrupt printer driver.

C)  Really OLD Inkjet Printer i.e "360 dpi"

I have the old HP6 and I have had much better luck than using my Cannon Inkjet.  Maybe it's the inks, but I have had no trouble with using the old HP.

Richard

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: scratch_6057 
  To: Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 7:18 AM
  Subject: [Homebrew_PCBs] Re: Inkjet Transparency Material


  --- In Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com, "Richard" <rwskinner@...> wrote:
  >
  > I actually use a laserjet to do mine, I had problems with over 
  exposure on the inkjets because they apprently let some light thru.
  > 
  > Richard
  > 

  I can only envision a few instances where a Laser would give
  better opacity results than an inkjet.

  A) Transparency film used is for Laser ONLY. Inkjet ink
  "pools" or "puddles"

  B) Inkjet in DRAFT mode, I seem to recall some printers that
  would "lock" into draft when the ink hit a certain low quantity
  level remaining in the cartridge. Possibly a corrupt printer driver.

  C) Really OLD Inkjet Printer i.e "360 dpi"



   

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>I have the old HP6 and I have had much better luck than using my 
>Cannon Inkjet. Maybe it's the inks, but I have had no trouble with 
>using the old HP.

In terms of opacity, pin holes and dropouts, there is no HP laserjet, 
even with the best transparency match, that can do a better job than 
the right inkjet with similar match. You would have to use vellum or 
tracing paper with the laserjet to even things out. One example of a 
right inkjet combo would be any of Epson's dye based printers and 
Epson's transparency.

--- In Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com, "Richard" <rwskinner@...> wrote:
>

Maybe I've been lucky all these years, or the inkjet printers are better than they were.
When I first started, all the suggestions were to use a copying machine or a Laser Jet, and NOT to use an inkjet.  I guess times have change.  Maybe next time I'll try my new inkjet photo printer and see how it does.

Don't take me wrong, I'm cetainly not argueing, it just caught me by surprise,  That is the only reason I kept this old laser jet around all these years.  I never, never had problems going two traces between  0.100" pins.

I never could understand why everyone felt that was difficult.  Again, guess I had been lucky.

I still will take the suggestions and advice I'm reading serious, no doubt some of youhave done this longer than me.

Richard

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: derekhawkins 
  To: Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 11:00 AM
  Subject: [Homebrew_PCBs] Re: Inkjet Transparency Material


  >I have the old HP6 and I have had much better luck than using my 
  >Cannon Inkjet. Maybe it's the inks, but I have had no trouble with 
  >using the old HP.

  In terms of opacity, pin holes and dropouts, there is no HP laserjet, 
  even with the best transparency match, that can do a better job than 
  the right inkjet with similar match. You would have to use vellum or 
  tracing paper with the laserjet to even things out. One example of a 
  right inkjet combo would be any of Epson's dye based printers and 
  Epson's transparency.

  --- In Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com, "Richard" <rwskinner@...> wrote:
  >


  Recent Activity
    a..  25New Members
  Visit Your Group 
  SPONSORED LINKS
    a.. Printed circuit board 
    b.. Electrical engineering software 
    c.. Electrical engineering 
    d.. Electrical engineering career 
    e.. Bachelor degree electrical engineering online 
  Need traffic?
  Drive customers

  With search ads

  on Yahoo!

  Y! GeoCities
  Share Your Resume

  Show off your

  talent and skills.

  Yahoo! Groups
  Start a group

  in 3 easy steps.

  Connect with others.
  . 
   

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 19:19:11 +0100, Richard <rwskinner@...> wrote:

> Maybe I've been lucky all these years, or the inkjet printers are better  
> than they were.
> When I first started, all the suggestions were to use a copying machine  
> or a Laser Jet, and NOT to use an inkjet.  I guess times have change.   
> Maybe next time I'll try my new inkjet photo printer and see how it does.
> Don't take me wrong, I'm cetainly not argueing, it just caught me by  
> surprise,  That is the only reason I kept this old laser jet around all  
> these years.  I never, never had problems going two traces between   
> 0.100" pins.
> I never could understand why everyone felt that was difficult.  Again,  
> guess I had been lucky.
> I still will take the suggestions and advice I'm reading serious, no  
> doubt some of youhave done this longer than me.
> Richard


Older inkjets were pretty crappy machines.
Lasers never have trouble with thin taces, it is fill areas that get them,  
and geometric distortion.

How many traces you get between 100mil pins also depends on the size of  
pad you wish to leave.

ST

For what it's worth, recently got some of the inkjet film referenced 
below but it fared no better than the Office Depots and Apollos 
tried. Maybe it was old stock or something.

Whatever, called Screen Printers and informed them that I would like 
to return it, whereupon and to their credit (hopefully mine too 
eventually), they gave me return instructions and no questions asked.

--- In Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com, "scratch_6057" 
<dml.empsrch@...> wrote:
>
> This is basically just an FYI post, I know it reads like an 
> advertisement but I have  NO connection with the company except 
being
> a happy customer. 
> 
> If you are one of those people who use Photosensitive boards to
> produce your PCBs, and you are using the 3M, Epson or other Inkjet 
> Transparency media to make films, (positive / negative). 
> You may want to take a look at this 
> ( http://screenprinters.net/product_group.php?gid=inkjetfilm ). 
> 
> I have used this material with an old Epson Stylus 1160 and obtained
> what I consider to be exceptional results compared to the other 
films
> I have tried (also used with Stylus 660, results were not as good 
but 
> were useable). Unlike other films I have used which have a coating 
to
> provide a tooth for the ink to bind to but take quite some time for
> the ink to dry and allow for ink "pooling" causing non uniformity in
> coverage, the coating on the film (above link) absorbs the ink 
almost

> immediately. The coating acts as if it is some sort of gelatin which
> soaks in the ink as it is laid onto the material.
> 
> My printer settings have been, Highest Density, Glossy Photo Paper,
> High Speed = OFF, & whatever else I would normally use for a FINAL 
> Photo Quality  Print.
>

--- In Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com, "derekhawkins" <eldata@...> 
wrote:
>
> For what it's worth, recently got some of the inkjet film 
referenced 
> below but it fared no better than the Office Depots and Apollos 
> tried. Maybe it was old stock or something.
> 
> Whatever, called Screen Printers and informed them that I would 
like 
> to return it, whereupon and to their credit (hopefully mine too 
> eventually), they gave me return instructions and no questions 
asked.
> 


Derek,
I'm sorry to hear that you had less than expected results 
with the ScreenPrinters.Net film. I'm surprised that your 
experience was less than acceptable. Would you be willing
to give details of what printer, ink and resolution you were
using? I'm wondering if the film was somehow resistant to the 
absorption of the particular ink you are using?

Thanks