Why did that person feel the need to attack the poster? What did they gain from it? How did it help the argument?
I don't think there's a single benefit from that line other than to be self-serving statement that says "i know more than you" when their rebuttal did that more effectively while staying on topic.
Direct responses can be intended to educate the person they are responding to, but they can also be intended to warn people around.
Does this person want to get a point across with empathy or do they want to discredit the comment to future readers to avoid the circulation of false information?
OP’s post was incredibly dismissive and incorrect but was written as if it was from an expert.
It’s textbook misinformation as far as I am concerned.
> Sounds like you need some more research into macrophotography
That undermined your otherwise very factual rebuttal/clarification because it seems like at best an impossible standard (everybody could always use more research into anything), and at worst a "you don't know as much as me" veiled in professionalism/passive aggressiveness. The interpretation is up to the reader (some of whom will be charitable in their interpretation, others will not).
To be clear I'm not accusing you of "the worst" (I have no idea what was in your heart/mind and I don't presume to guess), I'm executing on a personal goal to try and help elevate conversations through useful/constructive feedback. Also I'm not presuming that this comment/feedback is useful or constructive as it may not be, but I hope that it is because that's my goal.