The problem I see is that neologisms are the norm, today, rather than the exception.
Back in Eastman's day, newfangled, made-up words were not so common. Even the invented words that were used made some kind of sense. "Dagurerrotype," for instance. "Photograph," even.
Nowadays, we have names like "Kleenex" and "Band-Aid" that are so commonly used that we use them as household words. Names like "Nutri-Sweet" or "Truvia" just blend into the background.
Even acronyms ("scuba" = "self-contained underwater breathing apparatus") or initialisms ("ATM" = "Automatic Teller Machine") can be so common as to be meaningless.
It's not like the old days when a good strong name could make a company. Today, everybody's doing it. In fact, I'd say that it's now the other way around. The reputation of the company can redefine the word. (e.g. "Google" which should be "googol.")
I think the best bet would be to use a name as part of the company brand like "Jones Photographic Company."