Actually, it came as a translation of the French for "proc=E9d=E9 au charbon=
"
>powder as a paint in the gelatine. The pigment (paper,process)
^^^^^^
a "colorant" would be a better term
>is working by (mainly) watercolours.
>
>The everyday language is not scientific but full with customs.
>
>So, both name are meaning the both processes.
Yes and no. "Carbon process", refers to the carbon transfer process.
"Pigment process" never came into wide use before the oil and bromoil
processes became popular.
The latter expression, "pigment process" is more generic. When we can't
identify whether a prints is a carbon transfer print or some other form of
printing that involves a pigment, we call them "pigment prints". Of course
we much prefer being more specific and use terms like "oil print" or "oil
transfer", etc. but this is not always possible.
The "we" referred to above refers to a number of museums for which I work
from time to time.
>
>A better trick if the same name can mean a few basicly
>
>different processes. Eg. the chromotypia is a special finishing/painting
>process for photographs from the 1860-s,
>
>and a printing process, to make color postcards (about the
>
>first quarter of this century).
Now this is a different kettle of fish;-) There are at least four different
processes under that name in the _Encyclopedia of Printing..._
Luis Nadeau