Hello Maxie, MH was never broken, and LED didn't fix it, LED is just an alternative system to an already great light source in MH. MH does have some quirks that LED did help out, like lamp costs, electrical draw (which I can argue the savings are lost on your first breakdown), but are they equal in terms of exposure quality? We have done head to head tests to help develop new emulsions for both. LED=fast and inexpensive to operate and often the best emulsion is a diazo or pure photopolymer emulsion while dual cure tells another story. MH = the standard by which resolution and stencil strength are judged by can expose diazo, pure photopolymers, and dual cure emulsions (perfectly). Science tells the story. Histograms (Spectral Output), amplitude of light, how parallel are the light rays?, all tell different stories when compared. A lot of these annoying science facts make a difference in durability and resolution. However the two systems can work together beautifully. One takes care of the majority of work, but the other fixes what the first can't do. I would have both, I like LED for speed, I like MH for resolution and stencil durability, especially on thick stencils. I work with many shops that utilize both constantly. MH serves as a good back up to the sun on a rainy day (probably not an issue for you!) when post exposure after LED may be necessary for a high solid acrylic base destined for a long run. In any event, you can't go wrong with either, some issues that may not be important to one shop really shows up in another. Some print mostly spot, some 85 line concert shirts. To each his own, nothing wrong with either system if you like the prints and your customers are stoked. Just print.
