Olympus-OM

Re: [OM] ( OM ) Definition of digital images

from Ken Norton

Subject:	Re: [OM] ( OM ) Definition of digital images
From:	Ken Norton <ken@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:	Thu, 13 Aug 2009 08:36:49 -0500

>
> If that's really what he said then he's "talking through his *rse" as we'd
> say here !
>


The guy might be referring to CA correction.

AG
-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/

<Prev in Thread]	Current Thread	[Next in Thread>
Re: [OM] a glut of Zuiko 8/2.8s ?, (continued) Re: [OM] a glut of Zuiko 8/2.8s ?, Wayne Harridge Re: [OM] a glut of Zuiko 8/2.8s ?, Sue Pearce Re: [OM] a glut of Zuiko 8/2.8s ?, Dawid Loubser Re: [OM] a glut of Zuiko 8/2.8s ?, Sue Pearce Re: [OM] ( OM ) Definition of digital images, Ken Norton Re: [OM] ( OM ) Definition of digital images, Brian Swale Re: [OM] ( OM ) Definition of digital images, Chuck Norcutt Re: [OM] ( OM ) Definition of digital images, Jez Cunningham Re: [OM] ( OM ) Definition of digital images, Jez Cunningham Re: [OM] ( OM ) Definition of digital images, Wayne Harridge Re: [OM] ( OM ) Definition of digital images, Ken Norton <= Re: [OM] ( OM ) Definition of digital images, Jez Cunningham Re: [OM] ( OM ) Definition of digital images, Chuck Norcutt

Previous by Date:	Re: [OM] Another Colorado image posted, Ken Norton
Next by Date:	Re: [OM] To OM2000 or not to OM2000, Ian Manners
Previous by Thread:	Re: [OM] ( OM ) Definition of digital images, Wayne Harridge
Next by Thread:	Re: [OM] ( OM ) Definition of digital images, Jez Cunningham
Indexes:	[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]