Perhaps IPC is correct. Let's let the fab shops grab the designers by the hair
and rub our noses in photo-resist! I may walk away a little red in the face,
but at least I might learn something useful.

I thought the process went like this:
1. Fab shop produces film from gerbers.
2. A chemical called a photo-resist is then deposited onto the board material.
3. A light source exposes resist thru the film, be it a positive or negative.
4. A chemical bath then removes the unwanted resist and unwanted copper.


I may have something out of sequence or over simplified, but I must be close.


Why can,t a process be created to expose the resist using the gerber files?
And skip the photo-tool process? If a laser photoplotter can expose film at
.00025 resolution? Why can't it expose the board w/resist with the same amount
of accuracy? It would eliminate some of the problems inherent to the system.
Registration would be greatly improved. Fine line technology can take great
advantage of this improved resolution in trace to trace/pad capability.

It should make our boards cheaper! Right?

Please be gentle.