LazerMask V's PhotoMask

Is there a difference in the quality and detail between the different masks?

 A customer asked this question recently and I though what a good title for a blog. After checking in with Mr Billy Willis from Rayzist here is the answer.

 As a "resist" film, there is no "quality" difference. LazerMask will, however, be more resistant, as it's lower in water content. So LazerMask is ultimately more durable for deeper etching. For normal etching its does not matter because SR3000 does the job perfectly and ultimately is quicker to produce.

 If the question is based on ‘which will achieve better "detail" of a design?’ The Laser perhaps if the resolution and burn setting is dialed in just right, you can burn an image about two-three times the width of the beam. There would be plenty of experimenting to get the settings just right.

 But when it comes to the production of an image for blasting, you can have a very detailed PhotoMask produced in 2-3 minutes and have super detail, providing you have a high-quality art film print and good Inkjet printer to output the image. So ultimately processing SR3000 is faster for runs of work as lasers are slow based on the setting required.

 It also depends on the product, flat surface vs. curved, and the production of the design. Lasering is convenient for one-offs providing the setup is simple, but the speed of producing SR3000 "photomasks" is unmatched.

 Basically there is not a lot of difference between the two mask processes, it comes down to what you works best for you. The quality of work is excellent either way.


Authors: Billy Willis - Rayzist | Geoff Warleigh - ProBlast