<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>flōtblog: What others say &#187; Review</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.fotoflot.com/what-others-say/category/review/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.fotoflot.com/what-others-say</link>
	<description>What people like and what we can improve</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 14 Jan 2010 21:08:04 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>&#8220;If it’s good enough to put on a wall, then it deserves a quality printer&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://blogs.fotoflot.com/what-others-say/2010/01/14/if-it%e2%80%99s-good-enough-to-put-on-a-wall-then-it-deserves-a-quality-printer/</link>
		<comments>http://blogs.fotoflot.com/what-others-say/2010/01/14/if-it%e2%80%99s-good-enough-to-put-on-a-wall-then-it-deserves-a-quality-printer/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Jan 2010 21:08:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>fotoflōt</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Print Quality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[detail. sharpness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fotoflot]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.fotoflot.com/what-others-say/2010/01/14/if-it%e2%80%99s-good-enough-to-put-on-a-wall-then-it-deserves-a-quality-printer/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The title of the post is a quote from a fotoflōt review by Tejus Parik. Tejus recently flōted one of his photos and wrote about it in his blog. He compared the fotoflōt print with one done by a lower-cost photo processor and was impressed by the sharpness of the fotoflōt image. His post included [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The title of the post is a quote from a <a href="http://www.vijedi.net/2009/is-better-photo-printing-worth-it-and-fotoflot-review/" title="Tejus Parik fotoflōt review">fotoflōt review</a> by Tejus Parik. Tejus recently flōted one of his photos and wrote about it in his <a href="http://www.vijedi.net/2009/is-better-photo-printing-worth-it-and-fotoflot-review/" title="Tejus Parik fotoflōt review">blog</a>. He compared the fotoflōt print with one done by a lower-cost photo processor and was impressed by the sharpness of the fotoflōt image. His post included several side-by-side comparisons, including the following (fotoflōt on the top, other photo processor on the bottom):</p>
<p><a href="http://blogs.fotoflot.com/what-others-say/files/2010/01/4211375196_be6bcf71c2_b.jpg" title="Tejus Parik comparison - fotoflōt"><img src="http://blogs.fotoflot.com/what-others-say/files/2010/01/4211375196_be6bcf71c2_b-600.jpg" alt="Tejus Parik comparison - fotoflōt" /></a></p>
<p><a href="http://blogs.fotoflot.com/what-others-say/files/2010/01/4210609865_338f2b89cb_b.jpg" title="Tejus Parik comparison - other photo processor"><img src="http://blogs.fotoflot.com/what-others-say/files/2010/01/4210609865_338f2b89cb_b-600.jpg" alt="Tejus Parik comparison - other photo processor" /></a></p>
<p>Tejus commented, &#8220;You can see that the lines on the Peugeot in the top frame are far crisper and sharper.&#8221; And in his conclusion he said, &#8220;The details that made the picture interesting are simply lost in commodity printing.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://blogs.fotoflot.com/what-others-say/2010/01/14/if-it%e2%80%99s-good-enough-to-put-on-a-wall-then-it-deserves-a-quality-printer/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

