Talk:Eastman Kodak
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of Companies WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of companies. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. |
| B | This article has been rated as b-Class on the assessment scale. |
| Top | This article has been rated as top-importance on the assessment scale. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | ||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
 |
This article is within the scope of the Business and Economics WikiProject. |
| Start | rated as start-Class on the assessment scale |
| Low | rated as low-importance on the assessment scale |
[edit] Inaccurate information removed
From the Instant Camera section: " In the same period (1963-1970), Kodak shipped 50 million Instamatic cameras (introduced in 1963)." According to Instamatic, the term is used "incorrectly to describe Kodak's line of instant-picture cameras" and looking at Instant cameras one can see that they are called Kodamatic. As the other details may no longer be accurate (describing the Instamatic rather than the Kodamatic), I have removed them. 24.223.215.183 22:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Pinching of patents seems to have been a feature of George Eastman's career. In 1889 he was trying to overcome curling of a film base when coated with photographic emulsion. He was sent a sample of a patented celluloid varnish by New Jersey clergyman-inventor Hannibal Goodwin which did the job, but Eastman passed it to one of his chemists who 17 days later applied for a patent on a transparent roll film. The rest, as they say, is history. Goodwin's film was later marketed under the name An-sco and he was involved in litigation with Eastman until 1914 when he was awarded $5 million for patent infringement - a tidy sum in those days.
[edit] Info removed.
"determined by over 150,000 continuous measurements in homes around the world and published in peer-reviewed scientific journals over 14 years." - let's just see an actual reference to a journal article, and see a source for the 150,000 measurements claims, shall we? - Ta bu shi da yu 07:13, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
More removed: "which is also confirmed by real-world long-term print displays". Well, that's not exactly Kodak's target market now, is it? And give me a source for this data. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:17, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
References for both these claims were provided with the original text (in fact, one of the references persists--Bugner, et. al.--despite the arbitrary removal of the text). -- User: JonK
Kodak's history
Kodak manufactured roll films, and from 1888, also industrially manufactured cameras such as the Kodak Brownie and later on, the Instamatic, which were designed for everyday causal photography. Simply put, Kodak turned photography from an art into a leisure activity.
Kodachrome color slide films were introduced by Kodak in 1935. It was the quality standard for color film for many years. Kodachrome was manufactured first as 8-mm motion picture film, with the 35mm still camera film introduced one year later. The film was made famous in the Paul Simon song "Momma, Don't Take My Kodachrome Away". Kodak followed Kodachrome with Ektachrome slide film and Kodacolor film for color prints in the 1940s.
In the 1980s, Kodak intorodcued the "decision-free" Kodak Disc system. Due to poor print quality, the system was a failure. Disc film was discontinued in 1997, and Disc processing is no longer available.
After a patent controversy with Polaroid was lost, Kodak exited the instant camera market on January 9, 1986.
As Kodak's film sales declined, Kodak had to make major bsiness adjustments. For instance, in 2004, Kodak closed all of its company-owned wholesale photofinishing laboratories in Germany and the United Kingdom as well as significant number of similar labs in the United States. Likewise, Kodak's worldwide workforce was cut by 25,000 people, primarily in film-based products. In early, 2004 Kodak announced that it would no longer sell 35mm cameras in North America and Western Europe and discontinued production of Advanced Photo System (APS) cameras in order to be able to concentrate in the digital photography market.
[edit] contradiction
The first sentence of the article says that it is a small multinational company. But the third sentence says that it is the world's largest digital camera manufacturer. Then, how can it be small? vedant (talk • contribs) 21:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
The "world's largest" species of shrew is still a "small" mammal. 207.112.110.207 19:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Remove Stub
I think it is long enough to remove the stub status now, and wanted to see if anyone else agreed. ~Linuxerist L / T 06:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] What do they do?
How about some information on what Kodak does these days? Since print film is a shrinking market I would think they've headed in a new direction. -Rolypolyman 20:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- The still continue to create pictures form people's camers, but also the Kodak kiosk for digital cameras. The make printers and cameras too. Iolakana•T 20:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Kodak is engaged in a digitally oriented growth strategy that encompasses digital and traditional photographic and printing products.
Consumers use Kodak’s system of digital and traditional products and services to take, print and share their pictures anytime, anywhere. Businesses effectively communicate with customers worldwide using Kodak solutions for prepress, conventional and digital printing and document imaging. Creative Professionals rely on Kodak technology to uniquely tell their story through moving or still images. Leading Healthcare organizations rely on Kodak’s innovative products, services and customized workflow solutions to help improve patient care and maximize efficiency and information sharing within and across their enterprise.
DavidKassnoff 19:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)David Kassnoff, Manager, Communications, Eastman Kodak Company
-
- David Kassnoff, you may want to improve the quality of this article. It's still very fragmented, not well cited and doesn't fully present Kodak's current business portfolio and competitive position. Majoreditor 02:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
How about some information about the current status of organic semi conducting polymers. Eastman Kodak owns many of the fundamental patents in this extremely exciting and promising field of research. this has essentially caused all research to be performed in academic settings which are free from the patent issues. Have you ever heard of "plastic" solar cells? what about those 1-10 mm thick screens that sony sells? those are the better known applications of this technology. Kodak owns many of the patents on the polymer blacks, and this prevents private/industrial research, preventing cool and interesting technologies from being developed gordonliu68.6.122.218 (talk) 05:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Naming
Who on Earth calls Kodak "Eastman Kodak"? "Look! I got my new Eastman kodak camera!" or "Look! I got my new Kodak camera!" Iolakana•T 20:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
The official name of the company is Eastman Kodak, and the name Eastman is very well known especially in the professional field. Quite a few film stock (still photography or motion picture) includes Eastman in its product name (more often than the trademark Kodak). Dulldull 15:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Kodak is officially Eastman Kodak Company. We prefer you either use the full name, or the simplified "Kodak." The name traces its roots back to George Eastman, who founded the Eastman Dry Plate Company in 1881.
DavidKassnoff 19:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)David Kassnoff, Manager, Communications, Eastman Kodak Company
Though the official corporate preference is either the full "Eastman Kodak Company" or just "Kodak", current Wikipedia style on articles about corporations is to use the corporate name WITHOUT the form designation at the end ("Company", "Incorporated", "Corporation", "Limited" or abbreviations, British "PLC", Australian "Pty.", etc.) The best corollary I can think of is Royal Dutch Shell, which is officially "Royal Dutch Shell plc" and does business as "Shell" worldwide--even in the Netherlands. Thus, "Eastman Kodak" (with "Eastman", but not "Company") is proper. --RBBrittain (talk) 12:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] still a stub
This article may have been on here for awhile, but it is still really short. I can find more facts on the web than on here! It is absolutely pathetic! I mean, come on, get some more information on here. And edit the think. (nunofurbiznis14)
[edit] re: stll a stub
agree, its stil a stub. but if u want work dun do it! user:cheat14
[edit] reference outdated
the 4th web reference is outdated, needs fixed badly!
[edit] Needs help badly
Revision as of 22:04, 25 March 2007 has some information that can be incorporated into the current build. I added a very basic outline to the page. It needs extensive citations and some more formatting help. 128.194.5.139 17:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- The page looks *much* better as of 27 April 2007 and is up to Wikipedia standards! Thanks for the work. 128.194.5.139 07:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- I've evaluated it as Start-Class. It still has a way to go before it's B-class. Majoreditor 01:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] contradiction w/in wiki
Okay, so the fujifilm page talks about how Steven Spielberg uses Fujifilm for his movies, and yet this article says that "Many modern Cinema and TV productions (US and worldwide) are shot on Kodak film stocks, including all Academy Awards|Oscar-winning pictures" Except that Steven Spielberg won best picture for Schindler's List. Either the fuji article should say that SS uses fujifilm for *most* of his movies, or this page should say *most* winning pictures. 65.7.89.21 22:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:EastmanKodak logo.png
Image:EastmanKodak logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 02:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Weasely Edits
Several recent edits by DavidKassnoff - who claims to be a Kodak manager - seem pretty chock full of marketing language, and remove a lot of potentially unfavorable information from the article. I didn't want to revert them wholesale, but they don't seem very NPOV. - Tallasse 07:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- I've done some restoration of deleted sections, removed some marketing jargon, and pointed out uncited sections. Nonetheless, two things need to be noted: one, some of the edits Mr. Kassnoff made were substantive and relevant, and should be fine to stand. Two, the article as a whole is a giant mess full of these issues, most of which are not that editor's fault. A massive cleanup operation is in order - really, if the majority of the article was devoted to a full company history, it would help a great deal. Girolamo Savonarola 12:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] "Name" subsection
The introduction to this section, as it currently stands, is quite confusing to the layman reader (such as myself). To quote it:
The letter "K" had been a favorite of Eastman's, he is quoted as saying, "it seems a strong, incisive sort of letter". He and his mother devised the name Kodak with an anagram set. He said that there were three principal concepts he used in creating the name : it must be short, you can not mispronounce it, and it could not resemble anything or be associated with anything but Kodak.
The above is a common misconception of origin of the word Kodak. "Kodak" originated from the inventor of a roll film camera David Houston who patented it in 1881 and chose "Kodak" as an anagram of his home state, North Dakota.
It feels exceedingly clunky to start with a long and detailed paragraph and then basically saying "...NOT!". It simply reads like an edit war between opposing factions.
If the "Mother" story really is a misconception, its placement at the beginning of the subsection is misleading, and it should perhaps be moved below the "Dakota" story. At the very least, the paragraph should start with "a common misconception about the origin of the name 'Kodak' is... (etc)".
If it is not a misconception, the section should start by referring to the fact that there are opposing stories regarding the origins of the name, and then present both.
I won't do any edits myself, as I have no knowledge whatsoever about the history of Kodak. Mip | Talk 11:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- I've cleaned it up as best as I could. Girolamo Savonarola 12:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Disney
Is it worth mentioning the many things Kodak sponsor (such as at least one attraction in each Disney park worldwide)TimothyJacobson 17:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] American multinational?
What does American multinational mean? Is it multinational or is it American? 84.234.176.26 (talk) 20:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
