Huge Disrespect for George Eastman.

Stephen Frizza · Sep 4, 2011

I was looking around on ebay and came across this site.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/GEORGE-EASTMAN-PORTRAIT-8X10-PHOTO-KODAK-PHOTOGRAPHY-/230378509217?pt=Art_Photo_Images&hash=item35a3a113a1

I find it is HUGELY disrespectful to George Eastman the founder of KODAK. If you read the product description these reprints of one of George Eastman most famous portraits are printed on FUJI photographic paper. What on earth is this seller thinking??? Is it just me or does it seem totally wrong to print memorabilia images of George Eastman onto one of this largest competitors products?

Rick A · Sep 4, 2011

I suppose they could have printed it on Kodak paper, if it were still being produced.

hpulley · Sep 4, 2011

Strangely they printed it on Fuji Crystal Archive... they could just as well have printed it on Kodak Endura! Odd to print B&W on color paper though that is what Kodak suggests these days since they don't make B&W paper anymore. I still have some Polycontrast II 8x10 around to make real B&W prints on Kodak paper ;-) Strangely the old data sheets for Polycontrast don't say discontinued on Kodak.com, unlike pages for Verichrome Pan which suggest a replacement.

eddie · Sep 4, 2011

The ad says: "This is a professional chemically processed photo printed directly from the credited source". The source is listed as the Library of Congress. Does that mean they used a LOC negative? Can you legally use LOC materials for profit?

Pinholemaster · Sep 4, 2011

All material in the Library of Congress is available since their archives are public domain.

It is funny that the sales pitch says Fujifilm archive paper. Reminds me of the time a professional magazine photographer was hired to photograph the CEO of Kodak back in the 1980s. The photographer showed up with Fuji transparency film.

When I CEO saw the film, he was reported to have said "You are a professional, but after this portrait session is over, I do what to talk to you."

railwayman3 · Sep 4, 2011

Stephen Frizza said:
I find it is HUGELY disrespectful to George Eastman the founder of KODAK. If you read the product description these reprints of one of George Eastman most famous portraits are printed on FUJI photographic paper. What on earth is this seller thinking??? Is it just me or does it seem totally wrong to print memorabilia images of George Eastman onto one of this largest competitors products?

I understand your point...I suppose, however, that, while GE was certainly Kodak's founder, others might point out that he certainly didn't invent photography and that an equally large part of the high-quality of modern photo materials depends
on the work and research of other individuals and manufacturers, not only Kodak?

BrianL · Sep 4, 2011

It is like the President of General Motors being driven around town in a Lincoln limo. Nothing wrong with a Lincoln but, just seems somehow disrespectful or not taking into consideration the obvious oddness.

Jeff Kubach · Sep 4, 2011

It might made the print after Kodak B&W paper disappeared.

Jeff

MattKing · Sep 4, 2011

I would be very surprised if the Library of Congress bought multiple types of paper so as to match the manufacturer to the subject of the photos.

I expect that the Fuji paper was purchased as a result of an RFP procedure - I'm sure it met the technical requirements and was probably at least a few pennies cheaper per long roll.

Jim Jones · Sep 5, 2011

Stephen Frizza said:
I was looking around on ebay and came across this site.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/GEORGE-EASTMAN-PORTRAIT-8X10-PHOTO-KODAK-PHOTOGRAPHY-/230378509217?pt=Art_Photo_Images&hash=item35a3a113a1

I find it is HUGELY disrespectful to George Eastman the founder of KODAK. If you read the product description these reprints of one of George Eastman most famous portraits are printed on FUJI photographic paper. What on earth is this seller thinking??? Is it just me or does it seem totally wrong to print memorabilia images of George Eastman onto one of this largest competitors products?

Kodak was once respected as one of the World's great sources of film, paper, equipment, and information. Maintaining such a position is not easy. George Eastman and Kodak were the masters of their fate; the captains of their souls. If they failed, and plotted a course that let other companies take the lead, they do not deserve the blind undying respect of their former customers. I am amused by the ironic choice of a competitor's product for reproducing Eastman's portrait.

Michael W · Sep 5, 2011

At least it's not an inkjet print.

hpulley · Sep 5, 2011

Michael W said:
At least it's not an inkjet print.

But it could have been on Kodak Inkjet Paper and perhaps a Kodak Inkjet Printer?

removed account4 · Sep 5, 2011

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8v9yUVgrmPY

perkeleellinen · Sep 5, 2011

Back in the '70s when the UK was in a recession rather like now, there was a buy British campaign. The factory I used to work at (and this is years before my time) got in on the act and handed out boxes of matches to all the workers. On the boxes where Union flags and 'buy British'. On the reverse, as clear as day, was written 'made in China'.

ricardo12458 · Sep 5, 2011

perkeleellinen said:
Back in the '70s when the UK was in a recession rather like now, there was a buy British campaign. The factory I used to work at (and this is years before my time) got in on the act and handed out boxes of matches to all the workers. On the boxes where Union flags and 'buy British'. On the reverse, as clear as day, was written 'made in China'.

How ironic.

"Let's all proudly wave our American flags made in [Red] China."

ic-racer · Sep 5, 2011

Could this be on FUJIBROME B&W paper? I suspect that paper is long since discontinued. Was this paper ever imported to USA? How would LOC get this paper? Is this a print from the 1980s?

I thought the title of this thread was because of a disrespect for Eastman for making a company that now ignores is film customers.

Stephen Frizza · Sep 5, 2011

i contacted the seller who told me it was a shame that they have to print it using fuji paper on a fuji frontier but sadly kodak doesn't make photographic printing paper anymore. what the hell?????

hpulley · Sep 6, 2011

Frontier machine will be printed on Fuji Crystal Archive digital paper obviously.

Kodak has done such a great job telling everyone that they're now a B2B digital company that no one even knows they still make at least color printing paper in rolls... good job, guys

Aristophanes · Sep 6, 2011

BrianL said:
It is like the President of General Motors being driven around town in a Lincoln limo. Nothing wrong with a Lincoln but, just seems somehow disrespectful or not taking into consideration the obvious oddness.

Not a Lincoln. A Toyota.

Extending the metaphor.

billbretz · Sep 6, 2011

Stephen Frizza said:
What on earth is this seller thinking???

He's thinking he can make a few bucks.

Download image from LOC. Sell cheap reprint on eBay. Receive order (maybe). Print and ship for a couple of dollars. Pocket difference. No sale? No real cost.

No disrespect intended, seller might not even be aware of the irony. Not the kind of biz I'm interested in, but if the image is out of copyright (not all images in the LOC are in the public domain - this one is listed as 'rights status not evaluated') it's legit.

MattCarey · Sep 6, 2011

billbretz said:
He's thinking he can make a few bucks.

Download image from LOC. Sell cheap reprint on eBay. Receive order (maybe). Print and ship for a couple of dollars. Pocket difference. No sale? No real cost.

No disrespect intended, seller might not even be aware of the irony. Not the kind of biz I'm interested in, but if the image is out of copyright (not all images in the LOC are in the public domain - this one is listed as 'rights status not evaluated') it's legit.

The original image on the LOC website is from a glass negative (plate). Costs to make print from a glass negative is $40. No way the seller is reselling LOC printed copies.

LOC is highly resistant to pulling the negatives for stuff scanned (this one has a 20MB+ file)

As a preservation measure, we generally do not serve an original item when a digital image is available. If you have a compelling reason to see the original, consult with a reference librarian. (Sometimes, the original is simply too fragile to serve. For example, glass and film photographic negatives are particularly subject to damage. They are also easier to see online where they are presented as positive images.)

If I were exchanging emails with the seller, I would ask precisely how the portraits were made: i.e. from what negative, obtained in what way. Obviously the original negative is not being used. Mostly likely, the negative (if there is one) was produced from a scan by the LOC.

Huge Disrespect for George Eastman.

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency