| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kodak Portra article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
orange mask
editThe article seems to indicate that the orange mask is just for photographic printing and not for scanning.
As I understand it, it helps correct for the absorption of the dyes where there shouldn't be absorption, and so it applicable to either dircect optical printing or scanning. Gah4 (talk) 05:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Well, the absorption differences can be canceled out numerically in the scan. How well that could be done depends on how well you know the absorption curves. If you knew it was only used for scanning, you might do without the mask, but then too many scanners are optimized for masked negative film. Gah4 (talk) 09:55, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- AFAIK, orange masks are there to prevent scratching of the negative. --2003:71:4E6A:B424:9550:4DEB:BD20:97E3 (talk) 07:09, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Date of Introduction
editI shot Kodak film in the early 1970's. I never heard of Portra. I had hoped the article would have had a date Kodak introduced this film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:7:1A83:2538:2432:4878:BCBA:213F (talk) 05:11, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
As far as I know, Porta is the new name for the film previously known as Vericolor III, or VPS, with the usual evolutionary changes. Seems to me that it could have been Vericolor IV. Gah4 (talk) 23:37, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Kodak Portra. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101022121412/http://www.insideanalogphoto.com/inside-analog-photo-radio-scott-disabato-3/551 to http://www.insideanalogphoto.com/inside-analog-photo-radio-scott-disabato-3/551
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:01, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Vericolor and Ektacolor
editAny complaints if I make redirects from Vericolor and Ektacolor here? They are the predecessors of Portra. I don't know that there is any difference between VPS and Portra 160. Ektacolor are the C-22 predecessor professional negative films. Gah4 (talk) 23:34, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- Anyone know the actual difference between VPS and Portra NC? I did the redirect, but would like to know about the difference, and especially if Vericolor and Ektacolor should have their own articles. Gah4 (talk) 08:03, 14 January 2019 (UTC)