Flashback Friday: Kodak 1888
One-hundred, thirty-two years ago, today, inventor George Eastman received a patent (number 388,850) for [the shutter of a roll-film hand camera] and the trademark (number 15,825) for the Kodak name […].
Birth of a Company
In 1879, London was the center of the photographic and business world. George Eastman went there to obtain a patent on his plate-coating machine. An American patent was granted the following year. In April 1880, Eastman leased the third floor of a building on State Street in Rochester and began to manufacture dry plates for sale. Success of the dry plate venture so impressed businessman Henry A. Strong, that he invested some money in the infant concern. On January 1, 1881, Eastman and Strong formed a partnership called The Eastman Dry Plate Company. While actively managing all phases of the firm’s activities, [Eastman] continued research in an effort to simplify photography.
In 1883, Eastman startled the trade with the announcement of film in rolls, with the roll holder adaptable to nearly every plate camera on the market. [By] 1884, the Eastman-Strong partnership had given way to a new firm…the Eastman Dry Plate and Film Company with 14 shareowners.
George Eastman History
KodakBuilding the Foundation
Web Archive
The immediate triumph of the camera prompted Eastman to change the name of his company from Eastman Dry Plate and Film Company to Eastman Kodak Company in 1892.
My very first camera was a late 70s Kodak Instamatic with 126 film. It was a gift from my paternal grandmother and it got a lot of use. ~Vic
Additional Reading & Sources:
From The Camera Obscura To The Revolutionary Kodak (Eastman Museum)
Kodak History (Kodak Company)
Kodak Wikipedia
September 5, 2020 at 11:58 AM
I love the look of those Instamatic cameras plus the look of the earlier ones. Digital is great with somethings…like flowers and nature…but for people and places I love the Kodachrome look. I hated when they stopped doing Kodachrome.
I believe another company has started it back. I know they have filters now that try to make it look like that but it doesn’t for the most part.
September 5, 2020 at 3:04 PM
Me, too and, that’s because we like retro stuff. I wanted to cry when I couldn’t get film for my Instamatic, anymore. It effectively made my camera a paperweight. I don’t even remember what happened to it, now. I took pix of everything…hence the boxes of pictures that haven’t been scanned, yet. ☺
I think what you are referring to is the natural tint of the pix, commonly called “sepia.” A lot of picture software can alter digital photos to look “older.”
So, there is a company selling retro cameras & film? Do you mean a lens filter?
September 5, 2020 at 7:11 PM
Not just retro…Victoria…those pictures have soul. It’s like digital and vinyl. You can get film for it I think…companies make it now if I’m not mistaken…
You can order film now…someone else is making it. When the big ones dropped it some others picked it up…I’m almost 100 percent positive.
Dave was a photographer at one time…crime scenes and other things…he has talked about it I believe.
September 5, 2020 at 3:28 PM
I meant the camera, specifically. They are cooler looking than digital cameras.
And, regarding pix, they are in the same category as analog music…texture. Digital anything is soulless. It’s clean and clear but, devoid of, yes…soul. I totally agree. An image imprinted on celluloid is just like laying down analog tracks. There is a true essence capture.
I wish I knew what happened to my camera. Did you have one?
Crime scene photography. Yuck. 🤮
September 6, 2020 at 7:15 AM
Woo hoo to the camera! I got my first in the late ’70s also but I do not remember the exact model. Wish I still had it for display in my house. 🙂
September 6, 2020 at 3:15 PM
Yeah. We shutterbugs will wear out a camera. LOL!
I wish I could find my old one. I’ve moved 23 times in my life. I lost it, somewhere, I guess.