Con: ridiculous waste of emulsion adding up to $$$$$$$.
When coating an 11"x14" screen with emulsion in silkscreening I use ~4 oz. When coating paper for an 11"x14" pt/pd print I use ~1.5mL.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're asking. The only thing I can think that would be similar is the photo-resist emulsion on the screen. If you're talking about applying the pt/pd emulsion through a screen that has already been prepared for printing then you'd waste even more emulsion.
Silkscreening is done the way it is because the constituents for the process are so cheap.
Let's see what I've got in the magic trash can for Mateo!
I'm asking as I'm curious as to which would waste less emulsion, a paint brush applicator or a fine screen process? As a painter, I see how much material a good brush will pick-up, lay-down and what washes out in the clean-up.
A screen used to coat a number of sheets at one time would seem to be a better choice but real world experience is often different than theory.
While I'm asking questions, does anyone here think an inkjet could be modified to lay-down emulsion?
The bad news - the pt/pd sensitizer doesn't have the viscosity of silkscreen inks, so unlikely to work. However, the good news is that many people use a "puddle pusher" to spread sensitizer onto paper. It's made of a glass tube with "handle" and is similar to a silkscreen squeegee in terms of operation. No screen necessary, the sensitizer is spread directly on the paper with the puddle pusher.