I am very dissapointed to see that a lot of interesting historical information was removed while this was Wikipedia's Picture Of the Day. See the diff between March 16 and 23 (about 10 edits) Link [1] .... Also, as an example of really good and intersting information about history of color photography, please see [2] (Also, they have very good restorations of Proudskin's 100 year old color photographs as well, see [3]) .... We sorely need a GOOD history section for this article... Mdrejhon 02:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Why is Technicolor not mentioned inthe timeline. It is certainly a color process.66.142.184.38 22:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)robcat2075
I feel the history section should mention the Lippmann process. Granted, it went nowhere, but it's an important part of the history in that it was the only successful process that didn't use Maxwell's three color model.—MiguelMunoz (talk) 20:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
I believe this is the single most extreme bit of nonsense I've seen in Wikipedia: "the entire cone stalk is an interference transmission line which resonates at two frequencies" I thought about editing it out but I couldn't decide where I'd stop. Maybe the whole Land section should be removed if someone can't make sense of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.96.210.230 (talk) 04:58, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
It's just WP:FRINGE nonsense; completely out of step with what we know about the vision system. Since none of the section actually relates to photography, I've removed it all. -- 120.23.200.154 (talk) 03:48, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
This article needs a lot of work (or a lot of external links). I've added a bit of detail on screen-plate methods. Needs more on tri-camera and separation negative methods and on early colour print. Good descriptions of the (complications of) Kodachrome process and colour print film (C-41) are also needed somewhere. 80.177.213.144