Kodak Gallery

michaela.tokarski RemoveThis @gmail.com wrote:
> Is anyone else having a brutal time getting through to Kodak Easy Share
> Gallery?
>
> So far the web says I have 2 orders that shipped on Nov 21 and Nov 29
> and neither has arrived (it's December 5th!) though I selected 1-2 day
> shipping and paid 22$ for it. That's right 22$!
>
> Their "phone number" leads to a useless automated system that doesn't
> ever lead to a real person, and their email response time is brutally
> slow...
>
> I will not be using them again, but in the meantime if anyone has any
> idea how I can get a Kodak Gallery number that leads to a real person
> I'd love to find out if my order is ever coming so that I don't have to
> charge it back and get it somewhere else.
>
> (the Kodak numbers posted so far lead to real people who direct me to
> the automated system each time even though I ask not to be directed
> there....)
>
> Thanks in advance for any help.

It's not really a surprise. Kodak is in court with a former employee
who blew the whistle on them for planning to reduce the quality of all
images stored in the gallery WITHOUT telling their customers they were
going to do so. She told the press, was fired for it, and is now sueing
Kodak for wrongful termination. If they're capable of that, they're
capable of a lot of things. Not supporting the gallery at all would
seem to be a good way to lower costs, which is what reducing the image
quality was intended to do. Always creative, those Kodak folks!
 >> Stay informed about: Kodak Gallery 

jeremy wrote:
> "salgud" <davegb RemoveThis @safebrowse.com> wrote in message
> >
> > It's not really a surprise. Kodak is in court with a former employee
> > who blew the whistle on them for planning to reduce the quality of all
> > images stored in the gallery WITHOUT telling their customers they were
> > going to do so.
>
> Can you elaborate on just what it was that they were planning on doing to
> our images? Would the image degradation be visible on newly-uploaded image
> files, or only on images that they were storing from previous print orders?

They were talking internally about compressing all the images to save
on hard disk space. I don't believe they went through with this plan
but it sounded pretty bad.

Scott
 >> Stay informed about: Kodak Gallery 

"salgud" <davegb RemoveThis @safebrowse.com> wrote in message
>
> It's not really a surprise. Kodak is in court with a former employee
> who blew the whistle on them for planning to reduce the quality of all
> images stored in the gallery WITHOUT telling their customers they were
> going to do so.

Can you elaborate on just what it was that they were planning on doing to
our images? Would the image degradation be visible on newly-uploaded image
files, or only on images that they were storing from previous print orders?
 >> Stay informed about: Kodak Gallery 

Scott W wrote:
> jeremy wrote:
> > "salgud" <davegb RemoveThis @safebrowse.com> wrote in message
> > >
> > > It's not really a surprise. Kodak is in court with a former employee
> > > who blew the whistle on them for planning to reduce the quality of all
> > > images stored in the gallery WITHOUT telling their customers they were
> > > going to do so.
> >
> > Can you elaborate on just what it was that they were planning on doing to
> > our images? Would the image degradation be visible on newly-uploaded image
> > files, or only on images that they were storing from previous print orders?
>
> They were talking internally about compressing all the images to save
> on hard disk space. I don't believe they went through with this plan
> but it sounded pretty bad.
>
> Scott

They scrapped the plan when she went public with it. It would have been
a serious reduction in image quality. I don't remember the particulars.
You can google for it and get them if you're interested.
 >> Stay informed about: Kodak Gallery 

"salgud" <davegb.TakeThisOut@safebrowse.com> wrote in message
news:1165415604.398475.85960@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
>
> Scott W wrote:
>> jeremy wrote:
>> > "salgud" <davegb.TakeThisOut@safebrowse.com> wrote in message
>> > >
>> > > It's not really a surprise. Kodak is in court with a former employee
>> > > who blew the whistle on them for planning to reduce the quality of
>> > > all
>> > > images stored in the gallery WITHOUT telling their customers they
>> > > were
>> > > going to do so.
>> >
>> > Can you elaborate on just what it was that they were planning on doing
>> > to
>> > our images? Would the image degradation be visible on newly-uploaded
>> > image
>> > files, or only on images that they were storing from previous print
>> > orders?
>>
>> They were talking internally about compressing all the images to save
>> on hard disk space. I don't believe they went through with this plan
>> but it sounded pretty bad.
>>
>> Scott
>
> They scrapped the plan when she went public with it. It would have been
> a serious reduction in image quality. I don't remember the particulars.
> You can google for it and get them if you're interested.
>

I'm going to give Dale Labs a try for my digital stuff. Kodak Gallery has
been taking forever to send my prints back--sometimes as long as 21 days.
This latest development might just be the straw that breaks the camel's
back. Kodak is making it difficult, apparently to increase their profits,
but they are far from the only vendor out there. Too bad.
 >> Stay informed about: Kodak Gallery 

Greetings,

Actually, Kodak has always offered a full download option and it continues
to offer same. If you want to spend $25 a year you can upload and store as
many pictures as you want and be able to download the full image.

If you are not a member (use that service) you cannot download the full
resolution image, but a variation of it. Since you have uploaded the image,
it is assumed that you have the image on hand in your system. If having a
full resolution image is important the service is available (you get a web
site as well). If you do not want to join and get this feature, you can
always burn the images to a CD or DVD and keep it stored well.

Be sure to read the full story on the other issue noted.

Talk to you soon,

Ron Baird
Eastman Kodak Company


"jeremy" <jeremy.DeleteThis@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:3PAdh.2055$QD3.1221@trndny01...
> "salgud" <davegb.DeleteThis@safebrowse.com> wrote in message
> news:1165415604.398475.85960@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Scott W wrote:
>>> jeremy wrote:
>>> > "salgud" <davegb.DeleteThis@safebrowse.com> wrote in message
>>> > >
>>> > > It's not really a surprise. Kodak is in court with a former employee
>>> > > who blew the whistle on them for planning to reduce the quality of
>>> > > all
>>> > > images stored in the gallery WITHOUT telling their customers they
>>> > > were
>>> > > going to do so.
>>> >
>>> > Can you elaborate on just what it was that they were planning on doing
>>> > to
>>> > our images? Would the image degradation be visible on newly-uploaded
>>> > image
>>> > files, or only on images that they were storing from previous print
>>> > orders?
>>>
>>> They were talking internally about compressing all the images to save
>>> on hard disk space. I don't believe they went through with this plan
>>> but it sounded pretty bad.
>>>
>>> Scott
>>
>> They scrapped the plan when she went public with it. It would have been
>> a serious reduction in image quality. I don't remember the particulars.
>> You can google for it and get them if you're interested.
>>
>
> I'm going to give Dale Labs a try for my digital stuff. Kodak Gallery has
> been taking forever to send my prints back--sometimes as long as 21 days.
> This latest development might just be the straw that breaks the camel's
> back. Kodak is making it difficult, apparently to increase their profits,
> but they are far from the only vendor out there. Too bad.
>
 >> Stay informed about: Kodak Gallery 

Ï "jeremy" <jeremy.RemoveThis@nospam.com> Ýãñáøå óôï ìÞíõìá
news:3PAdh.2055$QD3.1221@trndny01...
> "salgud" <davegb.RemoveThis@safebrowse.com> wrote in message
> news:1165415604.398475.85960@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Scott W wrote:
> >> jeremy wrote:
> >> > "salgud" <davegb.RemoveThis@safebrowse.com> wrote in message
> >> > >
> >> > > It's not really a surprise. Kodak is in court with a former
employee
> >> > > who blew the whistle on them for planning to reduce the quality of
> >> > > all
> >> > > images stored in the gallery WITHOUT telling their customers they
> >> > > were
> >> > > going to do so.
> >> >
> >> > Can you elaborate on just what it was that they were planning on
doing
> >> > to
> >> > our images? Would the image degradation be visible on newly-uploaded
> >> > image
> >> > files, or only on images that they were storing from previous print
> >> > orders?
> >>
> >> They were talking internally about compressing all the images to save
> >> on hard disk space. I don't believe they went through with this plan
> >> but it sounded pretty bad.
> >>
> >> Scott
> >
> > They scrapped the plan when she went public with it. It would have been
> > a serious reduction in image quality. I don't remember the particulars.
> > You can google for it and get them if you're interested.
> >
>
> I'm going to give Dale Labs a try for my digital stuff. Kodak Gallery has
> been taking forever to send my prints back--sometimes as long as 21 days.
> This latest development might just be the straw that breaks the camel's
> back. Kodak is making it difficult, apparently to increase their profits,
> but they are far from the only vendor out there. Too bad.
>
>
I agree.After shuttercity mysteriously disappeared, I searched for another
host for my images.Since my camera is kodak, the most obvious choice would
be kodak gallery, and it really sucks.Well, to make a short story long, I
joined esnips and is really excellent.1 GB HD space free etc.etc.While I am
quite pleased with my digital camera, although it's made in China, the Kodak
gallery $ucks.
(see my photos http://www.esnips.com/web/dimtzortsPhotos
)


--
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
major in electrical engineering
mechanized infantry reservist
dimtzort AT otenet DOT gr
 >> Stay informed about: Kodak Gallery 

Ron Baird wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> Actually, Kodak has always offered a full download option and it continues
> to offer same. If you want to spend $25 a year you can upload and store as
> many pictures as you want and be able to download the full image.
>
> If you are not a member (use that service) you cannot download the full
> resolution image, but a variation of it. Since you have uploaded the image,
> it is assumed that you have the image on hand in your system. If having a
> full resolution image is important the service is available (you get a web
> site as well). If you do not want to join and get this feature, you can
> always burn the images to a CD or DVD and keep it stored well.
>
> Be sure to read the full story on the other issue noted.
>
> Talk to you soon,
>
> Ron Baird

And anyone who trusts Kojak with their images at this point deserves
what will inevitably happen! If they tried to cut the quality without
telling their customers, which of course, Kojak denies, then what else
will they do to save some money? If you want to believe that a long
time Kojak exec blew her career with them for no reason, you may. Me, I
believe her. She had nothing financially to gain by doing it, has lost
her job and is now in a lengthy lawsuit with them. And she made it all
up? Call me a cynic, but I doubt that very much!
> Eastman Kodak Company
>
>
> "jeremy" <jeremy.RemoveThis@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:3PAdh.2055$QD3.1221@trndny01...
> > "salgud" <davegb.RemoveThis@safebrowse.com> wrote in message
> > news:1165415604.398475.85960@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
> >>
> >> Scott W wrote:
> >>> jeremy wrote:
> >>> > "salgud" <davegb.RemoveThis@safebrowse.com> wrote in message
> >>> > >
> >>> > > It's not really a surprise. Kodak is in court with a former employee
> >>> > > who blew the whistle on them for planning to reduce the quality of
> >>> > > all
> >>> > > images stored in the gallery WITHOUT telling their customers they
> >>> > > were
> >>> > > going to do so.
> >>> >
> >>> > Can you elaborate on just what it was that they were planning on doing
> >>> > to
> >>> > our images? Would the image degradation be visible on newly-uploaded
> >>> > image
> >>> > files, or only on images that they were storing from previous print
> >>> > orders?
> >>>
> >>> They were talking internally about compressing all the images to save
> >>> on hard disk space. I don't believe they went through with this plan
> >>> but it sounded pretty bad.
> >>>
> >>> Scott
> >>
> >> They scrapped the plan when she went public with it. It would have been
> >> a serious reduction in image quality. I don't remember the particulars.
> >> You can google for it and get them if you're interested.
> >>
> >
> > I'm going to give Dale Labs a try for my digital stuff. Kodak Gallery has
> > been taking forever to send my prints back--sometimes as long as 21 days.
> > This latest development might just be the straw that breaks the camel's
> > back. Kodak is making it difficult, apparently to increase their profits,
> > but they are far from the only vendor out there. Too bad.
> >
 >> Stay informed about: Kodak Gallery 

Ron Baird wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> Actually, Kodak has always offered a full download option and it continues
> to offer same. If you want to spend $25 a year you can upload and store as
> many pictures as you want and be able to download the full image.
>
> If you are not a member (use that service) you cannot download the full
> resolution image, but a variation of it. Since you have uploaded the image,
> it is assumed that you have the image on hand in your system. If having a
> full resolution image is important the service is available (you get a web
> site as well). If you do not want to join and get this feature, you can
> always burn the images to a CD or DVD and keep it stored well.
>
> Be sure to read the full story on the other issue noted.
>
> Talk to you soon,
>
> Ron Baird

And anyone who trusts Kojak with their images at this point deserves
what will inevitably happen! If they tried to cut the quality without
telling their customers, which of course, Kojak denies, then what else
will they do to save some money? If you want to believe that a long
time Kojak exec blew her career with them for no reason, you may. Me, I
believe her. She had nothing financially to gain by doing it, has lost
her job and is now in a lengthy lawsuit with them. And she made it all
up? Call me a cynic, but I doubt that very much!
> Eastman Kodak Company
>
>
> "jeremy" <jeremy.DeleteThis@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:3PAdh.2055$QD3.1221@trndny01...
> > "salgud" <davegb.DeleteThis@safebrowse.com> wrote in message
> > news:1165415604.398475.85960@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
> >>
> >> Scott W wrote:
> >>> jeremy wrote:
> >>> > "salgud" <davegb.DeleteThis@safebrowse.com> wrote in message
> >>> > >
> >>> > > It's not really a surprise. Kodak is in court with a former employee
> >>> > > who blew the whistle on them for planning to reduce the quality of
> >>> > > all
> >>> > > images stored in the gallery WITHOUT telling their customers they
> >>> > > were
> >>> > > going to do so.
> >>> >
> >>> > Can you elaborate on just what it was that they were planning on doing
> >>> > to
> >>> > our images? Would the image degradation be visible on newly-uploaded
> >>> > image
> >>> > files, or only on images that they were storing from previous print
> >>> > orders?
> >>>
> >>> They were talking internally about compressing all the images to save
> >>> on hard disk space. I don't believe they went through with this plan
> >>> but it sounded pretty bad.
> >>>
> >>> Scott
> >>
> >> They scrapped the plan when she went public with it. It would have been
> >> a serious reduction in image quality. I don't remember the particulars.
> >> You can google for it and get them if you're interested.
> >>
> >
> > I'm going to give Dale Labs a try for my digital stuff. Kodak Gallery has
> > been taking forever to send my prints back--sometimes as long as 21 days.
> > This latest development might just be the straw that breaks the camel's
> > back. Kodak is making it difficult, apparently to increase their profits,
> > but they are far from the only vendor out there. Too bad.
> >
 >> Stay informed about: Kodak Gallery 

Ron Baird wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> Actually, Kodak has always offered a full download option and it continues
> to offer same. If you want to spend $25 a year you can upload and store as
> many pictures as you want and be able to download the full image.
>
> If you are not a member (use that service) you cannot download the full
> resolution image, but a variation of it. Since you have uploaded the image,
> it is assumed that you have the image on hand in your system. If having a
> full resolution image is important the service is available (you get a web
> site as well). If you do not want to join and get this feature, you can
> always burn the images to a CD or DVD and keep it stored well.
>
> Be sure to read the full story on the other issue noted.
>
> Talk to you soon,
>
> Ron Baird

And anyone who trusts Kojak with their images at this point deserves
what will inevitably happen! If they tried to cut the quality without
telling their customers, which of course, Kojak denies, then what else
will they do to save some money? If you want to believe that a long
time Kojak exec blew her career with them for no reason, you may. Me, I
believe her. She had nothing financially to gain by doing it, has lost
her job and is now in a lengthy lawsuit with them. And she made it all
up? Call me a cynic, but I doubt that very much!
> Eastman Kodak Company
>
>
> "jeremy" <jeremy.TakeThisOut@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:3PAdh.2055$QD3.1221@trndny01...
> > "salgud" <davegb.TakeThisOut@safebrowse.com> wrote in message
> > news:1165415604.398475.85960@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
> >>
> >> Scott W wrote:
> >>> jeremy wrote:
> >>> > "salgud" <davegb.TakeThisOut@safebrowse.com> wrote in message
> >>> > >
> >>> > > It's not really a surprise. Kodak is in court with a former employee
> >>> > > who blew the whistle on them for planning to reduce the quality of
> >>> > > all
> >>> > > images stored in the gallery WITHOUT telling their customers they
> >>> > > were
> >>> > > going to do so.
> >>> >
> >>> > Can you elaborate on just what it was that they were planning on doing
> >>> > to
> >>> > our images? Would the image degradation be visible on newly-uploaded
> >>> > image
> >>> > files, or only on images that they were storing from previous print
> >>> > orders?
> >>>
> >>> They were talking internally about compressing all the images to save
> >>> on hard disk space. I don't believe they went through with this plan
> >>> but it sounded pretty bad.
> >>>
> >>> Scott
> >>
> >> They scrapped the plan when she went public with it. It would have been
> >> a serious reduction in image quality. I don't remember the particulars.
> >> You can google for it and get them if you're interested.
> >>
> >
> > I'm going to give Dale Labs a try for my digital stuff. Kodak Gallery has
> > been taking forever to send my prints back--sometimes as long as 21 days.
> > This latest development might just be the straw that breaks the camel's
> > back. Kodak is making it difficult, apparently to increase their profits,
> > but they are far from the only vendor out there. Too bad.
> >
 >> Stay informed about: Kodak Gallery