Velvia 50 discontinued?

Hi,

I heard that Velvia 50 will be discontinued but Fuji is putting out
another film to replace it. Is there any word on this? If so, what film
is replacing it and what is it like? I don't know if it is rumor?

bucko

bucko wrote:

Hi,

I heard that Velvia 50 will be discontinued but Fuji is putting out
another film to replace it. Is there any word on this? If so, what film
is replacing it and what is it like? I don't know if it is rumor?

Where did you hear this? Got sources to link to?

--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

Hi,

I work for a photolab in Seattle, and sometimes the Fuji rep comes by.
He showed some Velvia 100 about 3 months ago. I believe that is what is
being sold in professional camera stores. I am NOT sure if Velvia 50
has been discontinued or if there is simply a 100 speed version in addition.

David A.

Alan Browne wrote:

bucko wrote:

Hi,

I heard that Velvia 50 will be discontinued but Fuji is putting out
another film to replace it. Is there any word on this? If so, what film
is replacing it and what is it like? I don't know if it is rumor?


Where did you hear this? Got sources to link to?

David Azose wrote:


I work for a photolab in Seattle, and sometimes the Fuji rep comes by.
He showed some Velvia 100 about 3 months ago. I believe that is what is
being sold in professional camera stores. I am NOT sure if Velvia 50
has been discontinued or if there is simply a 100 speed version in
addition.

-100F has been sold here for about a year now.

-The addition of 100F is to give an extra stop of light to work with, with
little if any additional grain. So it's possible, but has not been announced to
date. (Could be they're trying to guage how the new film affects sales of the 50).

-Next time the rep drops in, ask him if 50 might disappear

-Please don't top post replies.

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

Alan... What is the root of resistance to top-posting? I'm asking in
a manner of curiosity.

With my reader (Agent 2.0), it seems so much easier to read responses
as they come up on the top portion of the message reading screen
rather than scrolling down on the typically excessive quoting that
seems to be common. I've already read the post that is being
responded to and would rather not scroll down to a reply. Again, I'm
asking in a cordial, inquiring manner and not trying to argue. If
there is a logic behind top-posting that makes sense to me, I'll
certainly change my ways.

I'm a former sysop from before the common use of the Internet and
likely developed a sensitivity to over-quoting as we were using long
distance at 300 baud to hold Fidonet (and others) communicating costs
to a minimum. My off-line readers and editors defaulted to
top-posting so this also formed my habit, I suppose.

On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 15:14:17 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

-Please don't top post replies.

Cheers,
Alan


Craig Schroeder
craig nospam craigschroeder com

-Eschew Obfuscation-

Craig Schroeder wrote:

Alan... What is the root of resistance to top-posting? I'm asking in
a manner of curiosity.

example:
A: Because it makes reading the sequence of posts difficult
Q: Why?
A: No
Q: Should I top post?

That is the standard example. Two nettiquette "standards" applying to usenet
postings: 1) snip away irrelevant text; 2) bottom post (and/or interleave the
replies).

With my reader (Agent 2.0), it seems so much easier to read responses
as they come up on the top portion of the message reading screen
rather than scrolling down on the typically excessive quoting that

Snipping is also encouraged. Not everyone has seen the thread from the origin
(and may not be able to if it has expired). So an "in-order" posting is easier
to follow for people who jump into the thread.

Snipping helps reduce the post to the essentials. From time to time somebody
will state (like you): "my reader does..." but that is pretty irrelvant, the
reader has to start somewhere, and the top is as good as any for a text message
editor (mine optionally will go to the bottom).

seems to be common. I've already read the post that is being
responded to and would rather not scroll down to a reply. Again, I'm

Again, not everyone jumping in has seen the origins of the thread.

asking in a cordial, inquiring manner and not trying to argue. If
there is a logic behind top-posting that makes sense to me, I'll
certainly change my ways.

Bearing in mind that 98% of usenet statistics are made up on the spot, I'd say
about 80% or more prefer bottom posting as it is intrinsically easier to read.

In my opinion, snipping and bottom posting are politeness issues ... so it seem
polite to actually read all of the other persons post, polite to make an effort
to snip, polite to make an effort to make the entire message readable. This
politeness is for the collective good and pays off for everyone over time.

Some (not all) who top post have selfish motives. "Last word" syndrome and
placing their sig lines near the top of messages in a thread. The sig line in
this case bearing links to their web page. That such people usually have little
of value to contribute doesn't seem to hold them back in the least.

I'm a former sysop from before the common use of the Internet and
likely developed a sensitivity to over-quoting as we were using long
distance at 300 baud to hold Fidonet (and others) communicating costs

been there.

to a minimum. My off-line readers and editors defaulted to
top-posting so this also formed my habit, I suppose.

For e-mail, I prefer top posted replies, but that is usually between a limited
number of people for a limited duration. Usenet postings more often can run for
a long time, so snip/bottom helps.

I guess I picked up the snip/bottom habit very early in my usenet days. I admit
that this is an *issue* for me to the point that I become an irritating
bottom-post advocate. I believe that in the end it saves everyone else time
when I invest my time in making something more readable; therefore the same
courtesy is desired from others.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

Craig Schroeder wrote:

Alan... What is the root of resistance to top-posting? I'm asking in
a manner of curiosity.

example:
A: Because it makes reading the sequence of posts difficult
Q: Why?
A: No
Q: Should I top post?

That is the standard example. Two nettiquette "standards" applying to usenet
postings: 1) snip away irrelevant text; 2) bottom post (and/or interleave the
replies).

With my reader (Agent 2.0), it seems so much easier to read responses
as they come up on the top portion of the message reading screen
rather than scrolling down on the typically excessive quoting that

Snipping is also encouraged. Not everyone has seen the thread from the origin
(and may not be able to if it has expired). So an "in-order" posting is easier
to follow for people who jump into the thread.

Snipping helps reduce the post to the essentials. From time to time somebody
will state (like you): "my reader does..." but that is pretty irrelvant, the
reader has to start somewhere, and the top is as good as any for a text message
editor (mine optionally will go to the bottom).

seems to be common. I've already read the post that is being
responded to and would rather not scroll down to a reply. Again, I'm

Again, not everyone jumping in has seen the origins of the thread.

asking in a cordial, inquiring manner and not trying to argue. If
there is a logic behind top-posting that makes sense to me, I'll
certainly change my ways.

Bearing in mind that 98% of usenet statistics are made up on the spot, I'd say
about 80% or more prefer bottom posting as it is intrinsically easier to read.

In my opinion, snipping and bottom posting are politeness issues ... so it seem
polite to actually read all of the other persons post, polite to make an effort
to snip, polite to make an effort to make the entire message readable. This
politeness is for the collective good and pays off for everyone over time.

Some (not all) who top post have selfish motives. "Last word" syndrome and
placing their sig lines near the top of messages in a thread. The sig line in
this case bearing links to their web page. That such people usually have little
of value to contribute doesn't seem to hold them back in the least.

I'm a former sysop from before the common use of the Internet and
likely developed a sensitivity to over-quoting as we were using long
distance at 300 baud to hold Fidonet (and others) communicating costs

been there.

to a minimum. My off-line readers and editors defaulted to
top-posting so this also formed my habit, I suppose.

For e-mail, I prefer top posted replies, but that is usually between a limited
number of people for a limited duration. Usenet postings more often can run for
a long time, so snip/bottom helps.

I guess I picked up the snip/bottom habit very early in my usenet days. I admit
that this is an *issue* for me to the point that I become an irritating
bottom-post advocate. I believe that in the end it saves everyone else time
when I invest my time in making something more readable; therefore the same
courtesy is desired from others.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

Craig Schroeder wrote:

Alan... What is the root of resistance to top-posting? I'm asking in
a manner of curiosity.

example:
A: Because it makes reading the sequence of posts difficult
Q: Why?
A: No
Q: Should I top post?

That is the standard example. Two nettiquette "standards" applying to usenet
postings: 1) snip away irrelevant text; 2) bottom post (and/or interleave the
replies).

With my reader (Agent 2.0), it seems so much easier to read responses
as they come up on the top portion of the message reading screen
rather than scrolling down on the typically excessive quoting that

Snipping is also encouraged. Not everyone has seen the thread from the origin
(and may not be able to if it has expired). So an "in-order" posting is easier
to follow for people who jump into the thread.

Snipping helps reduce the post to the essentials. From time to time somebody
will state (like you): "my reader does..." but that is pretty irrelvant, the
reader has to start somewhere, and the top is as good as any for a text message
editor (mine optionally will go to the bottom).

seems to be common. I've already read the post that is being
responded to and would rather not scroll down to a reply. Again, I'm

Again, not everyone jumping in has seen the origins of the thread.

asking in a cordial, inquiring manner and not trying to argue. If
there is a logic behind top-posting that makes sense to me, I'll
certainly change my ways.

Bearing in mind that 98% of usenet statistics are made up on the spot, I'd say
about 80% or more prefer bottom posting as it is intrinsically easier to read.

In my opinion, snipping and bottom posting are politeness issues ... so it seem
polite to actually read all of the other persons post, polite to make an effort
to snip, polite to make an effort to make the entire message readable. This
politeness is for the collective good and pays off for everyone over time.

Some (not all) who top post have selfish motives. "Last word" syndrome and
placing their sig lines near the top of messages in a thread. The sig line in
this case bearing links to their web page. That such people usually have little
of value to contribute doesn't seem to hold them back in the least.

I'm a former sysop from before the common use of the Internet and
likely developed a sensitivity to over-quoting as we were using long
distance at 300 baud to hold Fidonet (and others) communicating costs

been there.

to a minimum. My off-line readers and editors defaulted to
top-posting so this also formed my habit, I suppose.

For e-mail, I prefer top posted replies, but that is usually between a limited
number of people for a limited duration. Usenet postings more often can run for
a long time, so snip/bottom helps.

I guess I picked up the snip/bottom habit very early in my usenet days. I admit
that this is an *issue* for me to the point that I become an irritating
bottom-post advocate. I believe that in the end it saves everyone else time
when I invest my time in making something more readable; therefore the same
courtesy is desired from others.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

Craig Schroeder wrote:

Alan... What is the root of resistance to top-posting? I'm asking in
a manner of curiosity.

example:
A: Because it makes reading the sequence of posts difficult
Q: Why?
A: No
Q: Should I top post?

That is the standard example. Two nettiquette "standards" applying to usenet
postings: 1) snip away irrelevant text; 2) bottom post (and/or interleave the
replies).

With my reader (Agent 2.0), it seems so much easier to read responses
as they come up on the top portion of the message reading screen
rather than scrolling down on the typically excessive quoting that

Snipping is also encouraged. Not everyone has seen the thread from the origin
(and may not be able to if it has expired). So an "in-order" posting is easier
to follow for people who jump into the thread.

Snipping helps reduce the post to the essentials. From time to time somebody
will state (like you): "my reader does..." but that is pretty irrelvant, the
reader has to start somewhere, and the top is as good as any for a text message
editor (mine optionally will go to the bottom).

seems to be common. I've already read the post that is being
responded to and would rather not scroll down to a reply. Again, I'm

Again, not everyone jumping in has seen the origins of the thread.

asking in a cordial, inquiring manner and not trying to argue. If
there is a logic behind top-posting that makes sense to me, I'll
certainly change my ways.

Bearing in mind that 98% of usenet statistics are made up on the spot, I'd say
about 80% or more prefer bottom posting as it is intrinsically easier to read.

In my opinion, snipping and bottom posting are politeness issues ... so it seem
polite to actually read all of the other persons post, polite to make an effort
to snip, polite to make an effort to make the entire message readable. This
politeness is for the collective good and pays off for everyone over time.

Some (not all) who top post have selfish motives. "Last word" syndrome and
placing their sig lines near the top of messages in a thread. The sig line in
this case bearing links to their web page. That such people usually have little
of value to contribute doesn't seem to hold them back in the least.

I'm a former sysop from before the common use of the Internet and
likely developed a sensitivity to over-quoting as we were using long
distance at 300 baud to hold Fidonet (and others) communicating costs

been there.

to a minimum. My off-line readers and editors defaulted to
top-posting so this also formed my habit, I suppose.

For e-mail, I prefer top posted replies, but that is usually between a limited
number of people for a limited duration. Usenet postings more often can run for
a long time, so snip/bottom helps.

I guess I picked up the snip/bottom habit very early in my usenet days. I admit
that this is an *issue* for me to the point that I become an irritating
bottom-post advocate. I believe that in the end it saves everyone else time
when I invest my time in making something more readable; therefore the same
courtesy is desired from others.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

David Azose wrote:


I work for a photolab in Seattle, and sometimes the Fuji rep comes by.
He showed some Velvia 100 about 3 months ago. I believe that is what is
being sold in professional camera stores. I am NOT sure if Velvia 50
has been discontinued or if there is simply a 100 speed version in
addition.

-100F has been sold here for about a year now.

-The addition of 100F is to give an extra stop of light to work with, with
little if any additional grain. So it's possible, but has not been announced to
date. (Could be they're trying to guage how the new film affects sales of the 50).

-Next time the rep drops in, ask him if 50 might disappear

-Please don't top post replies.

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--