<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="http://blogs.technet.com/utility/FeedStylesheets/rss.xsl" media="screen"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"><channel><title>Photographic resolution and scans.</title><link>http://blogs.technet.com/b/jamesone/archive/2010/03/08/photographic-resolution-and-scans.aspx</link><description>I’ve heard it said that every time you use an equation you lose half the audience. I’m going to take that risk : In photography there are a lot of equations which come up in the form 1/x + 1/y = 1/z , and one of those is for recorded resolution. 1/Lens</description><dc:language>en-US</dc:language><generator>Telligent Evolution Platform Developer Build (Build: 5.6.50428.7875)</generator><item><title>re: Photographic resolution and scans.</title><link>http://blogs.technet.com/b/jamesone/archive/2010/03/08/photographic-resolution-and-scans.aspx#3317583</link><pubDate>Mon, 08 Mar 2010 15:57:51 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">d5e57398-b9ef-4490-9955-07cbb4e4a80d:3317583</guid><dc:creator>P J Bryant</dc:creator><description>&lt;p&gt;I've been in a similar trap - there is a danger of going into ever-increasing detail and concern and forgetting to look back and say &amp;quot;that's a nice picture!&amp;quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div style="clear:both;"&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;img src="http://blogs.technet.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=3317583" width="1" height="1"&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>