fairly disparate collection and this is one problem with trying to find an
overall name for them.
However one thing we can all try to avoid is the unnecessary proliferation
of
names for minor variations in existing processes. If we are worried about
the
picture-buying public understanding what we are doing then we should try
for
the minimum number of categories. I've always tried to do this (and
sometimes
been criticised for it) by calling, for example ALL processes based on the
light sensitivity of iron compounds followed by a reaction with silver ions
'kallitypes'.
Similarly all processes based on the hardening of colloids using dichromate
as
the light sensitive material would be called 'gum bichromate' a.strauss@worldnet.att.net (no 'gloy
bichromate' process etc!)
Of course when talking amongst ourselves we will continue to want to
distinguish the minor variations, and some of the other names may continue
to
have a use in this context.
<
I have put >s round so much of Peter's comments because they are worth
repeating as so much sound common sense.
Terry
----------