Subject | Re: Lenses and sharpening |
From | nospam |
Date | 09/22/2014 18:03 (09/22/2014 12:03) |
Message-ID | <220920141203067266%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
Client | |
Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
Follows | PeterN |
Followups | Eric Stevens (5h & 45m) > nospam |
it worked for you the first time.PeterNnospamPeterNnospamPeterNnospamnospamPeterN
the proof is in the link and has already been pointed out more than once. it's a simple thing to do. have you done it? no. instead, you spew nonsense, demonstrating just how much of an idiot you are.
You made a statement, I asked for proof, and you trun to pejoratives.
proof was provided.
if you aren't going to bother reading it (even before you asked) and doing what it describes, then my response is very appropriate and not pejorative at all.
No 132 "proof was provided."
it was.PeterNnospam
I knew tht answer before you posted it. Though posssibly you might have used "you wouldn't understand it."
you don't.
Since you htink I am hat dumb, in the interesting of communicationg, restate your "proof."
read the link eric provided.
either it's over your head or you'd rather argue.
<https://www.ledet.com/margulis/ACT_postings/ColorCorrection/ACT-LAB-dam age.htm>
Typical error 404