Subject: | Re: [OM] Age data was Non-OM, Non-NG |
---|---|
From: | "c.e. packard" <packardc@xxxxxxxxx> |
Date: | Fri, 28 May 1999 20:00:21 -0500 |
Quite correct my astute friend. Isn't weird that no matter how carefully an email is proof-read, the obvious error isn't discovered until after the 'SEND' button has been clicked. C. Packard Birmingham AL USA Giles wrote: > > You got the story right up until you said AGFA - that should be Fuji ;-) > > Giles > > c.e. packard wrote: > > > 4 rolls of AGFA Reala 100. My friends were VERY impressed with the results. > > > < This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List > > < For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > < Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html > < This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List > < For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > < Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html > |
<Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
---|---|---|
|
Previous by Date: | Re: [OM] Blue dot, Rand E. Tomcala |
---|---|
Next by Date: | Re: [OM] Lens Test: 250mm f/2 Zuiko (hold on to your hats!), John A. Prosper |
Previous by Thread: | Re: [OM] Age data was Non-OM, Non-NG, Giles |
Next by Thread: | Re: [OM] Age data was Non-OM, Non-NG, Keith (R.K.) Berry |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |