|
|
| Author |
Message |
mcpoz
|
|
Kodak quality
| 
Apr 12 00:34 UTC 1995 |
Hey, have you ever had a quality problem with Kodak? Years back, we bought
a 110 camera from Kodak. Pictures were terrible. I thought it acted as if
it were either radioactive, or had a light leak. Nancy (my wife) took it
on with Kodak. Talked to their corporate QC director and even their pres.
Bottom line, they kept sending her letters saying she probably had her
f finger over the lens, or was shaking violently while taking her pictures
etc. Their final letter said "the product meets our spec and we will
not discuss it further."
|
| 11 responses total. |
exp
|
|
response 1 of 11:
|
Apr 12 04:06 UTC 1995 |
i've used kodak for 25 yrs. never hadcause to complain, however i never
used 110, just 35 and 12, mostly kodak vps.
..
|
kaplan
|
|
response 2 of 11:
|
Apr 13 02:15 UTC 1995 |
Kodak cameras and photofinishing are less than entirely trustworthy. But
in my opinion the quality of the film, paper, and chemicals from Kodak
are of consistantly high quality. As near perfect as one could expect.
I've worked in photo labs and have done some work in darkrooms too. My
opinions are in no way influenced by the fact that I'm from Rochester, NY
and myather's small business supplies containers to Kodak.
|
mcpoz
|
|
response 3 of 11:
|
Apr 13 10:21 UTC 1995 |
Jeff: I agree with your comments, especially on the quality of their film.
I think there was a time when their faster color print films were
not as good as the competition, but that has been corrected. I do believe
they were lousy in quality in their amateur entry level cameras. The thing
that bothered us the most was their "I have your money, now leave me alone"
attitude toward a dissatisfied customer.
|
mwarner
|
|
response 4 of 11:
|
Apr 15 04:06 UTC 1995 |
I read a good number of years ago (sorry, no specific reference comes to
mind) that EK had a less than sterling reputation as an employer. I
wonder if that is still true, or was ever the case.
|
devlin
|
|
response 5 of 11:
|
Jun 13 03:50 UTC 1995 |
As an "Ex" EK employee, I can honestly say that with some minor flaws
common to major corporations everywhere, they were in all likelyhood the
best company I ever had the pleasure of working for! Frankly, If it hadn't
been for my (now) ex-wife's attourny saying that since I was about to be
vested, that they should get half my retirement, I wouldn't have Quit.
|
mcpoz
|
|
response 6 of 11:
|
Jun 16 01:28 UTC 1995 |
That's a pretty impressive comment about EK!
|
denise1
|
|
response 7 of 11:
|
Jan 19 18:00 UTC 2002 |
Hey, everyone! I don't know if anyone is still reading this conf [I hope
people are still checking in from time to time]. Since this item is about
the qualitity of Kodak [or your opinion of it], I was wandering you think of
it now?? How do you compare it with Fuji or any other brand??
[I've been away from grex fo a number of years, but just got a new computer...
;-)
|
gull
|
|
response 8 of 11:
|
Jan 21 15:06 UTC 2002 |
I've had better luck with Kodak photofinishing than I have with places
that do their own. I sometimes have quibbles with how the machine
senses the exposure but at least it's consistant.
I've never used a Kodak camera so I can't comment on that. Almost
*all* 110 cameras were lousy and prone to light leaks, though. There
were a few exceptions. A couple companies made 110 SLR's that were
pretty cool, and nicely compact compared to 35mm units. Today's
equivalent would be the APS SLRs, I suppose.
|
eprom
|
|
response 9 of 11:
|
Nov 15 00:23 UTC 2004 |
I found two old Kodachrome slides at an antique shop. I first presumed they
were taken in the mid 60's. Then I did some searching on the web, and now
estimate they was taken between 1949-1952. I'm sorta amazed at the great
condition they are in. It'll be interesting to see if the newer E-6 films
can stand the test of time as well. If I have time tommorow I'll try to scan
it at school.
Oh, I also picked up a "new" roll of 620 roll film (Kodacolor-X ASA 80). It
has a develop before date of Nov 1965. I didn't realize it when I bought it,
but it needs to be processed in C-22 developer. Too bad, it would have been
fun to re-spool it onto a 120 roll and shoot it to see how it came out. I
took a picture of it:
http://members.thegeekgroup.org/~eprom/random2/kodacolorx.jpg
|
gull
|
|
response 10 of 11:
|
Nov 15 01:17 UTC 2004 |
I think my dad has a couple of antique cameras that can load that type
of roll.
|
eprom
|
|
response 11 of 11:
|
Nov 15 21:56 UTC 2004 |
here's the scan: http://www.thebroncoweb.com/photos/00017826.jpg
it's a little more fuzzy than what it looked like on the slide table.
|