% i# ]8 a2 f- K" }9 v; sHow can you see "明显是p的嘛"? I use Photoshop a lot and know that is very easy, however I don't see the clue of Photoshopping this pic. / ]( ^$ D4 \0 l5 K) PNo offense, just curious.
peterpan 发表于 2012-11-19 12:29 , M2 w. o8 T) R& @* f; A( K/ J
How can you see "明显是p的嘛"? I use Photoshop a lot and know that is very easy, however I don't s ...
- R6 c: M; x$ C6 Q7 p! K/ @第一 两个牌子字体不一样 ; |8 o: {: V ]# n( v
7 R, \% J1 ^/ b4 X
第二 两个牌子高度不合立体逻辑+ I, Z1 x2 f- B: B L( m* D5 y% A
/ w) L; j+ F! |
第三 特别提示 和 违者 下面没有英文 % { B' |; J2 [9 q
peterpan 发表于 2012-11-19 12:29 8 @% {5 t( u+ G. v. B, s wHow can you see "明显是p的嘛"? I use Photoshop a lot and know that is very easy, however I don't s ...
ChinZ 发表于 2012-11-19 14:53 ) _. g1 x, p. m8 t9 z
第一 两个牌子字体不一样 / A3 V% Q8 b6 v- a$ t/ \8 l 4 S% \% P& m! a5 V8 i' b" \# b' r% E第二 两个牌子高度不合立体逻辑
8 E4 u2 o3 y x! Z% T1.字体一样都是黑体7 `, h3 Q2 c' w5 G4 y
2。高度绝对符合立体逻辑,否则我这么多年建筑是白搞了0 l. Y1 n. }% w# C4 p4 D8 N1 E% a
3。这是唯一可以争论的,不过可能“特别提示”和路标不同,不必非要中英文对照。而且如果是ps的话,这段话肯定不是ps的