Talk:Kodak Portra

orange mask

The 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

I 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

Hello 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

Any 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)

Incorrect page move

• Kodak Portra was moved to Kodak Ektacolor
• These are different film stocks
• Request revert of move

~2026-18852-67 (talk) 18:19, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

This is correct. Both products are both still being sold by either Eastman Kodak or Kodak Alaris. MattStoffel (talk) 10:15, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

The page needs to be reverted & Ektacolor needs its own new page MattStoffel (talk) 10:16, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

I've now moved this back to Portra. Younotmenotyou (talk) 16:06, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Eastman Kodak seems to handle distribution to Australia now as well, which seems to mean that Alaris is no longer willing to distribute film, at least within the US and Australia. PetaPixel and DPReview also state that Kodak has rebranded Portra to Ektacolor. Furthermore, both Portra and Ektacolor have ASA ratings of 160, 400, and 800, and have a purple color coding. The issue is that not Kodak nor Alaris has released any statement, which increases confusion, which is why I believe it's best if we wait for a roll of Ektacolor to be processed to determine whether or not they're the same film stock.

Transitmatt (talk) 11:21, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

For now though, we should leave it as is. I don't think T-Max has been changed as well. Apologies for jumping to conclusions and moving the page. Transitmatt (talk) 11:22, 28 March 2026 (UTC)