<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0"><updated>2010-11-14T21:11:54Z</updated><id>tag:sursumcorda.salemsattic.com,2018:/isso/thread/post/thanksgiving-14-digital-cameras</id><title>Comments for sursumcorda.salemsattic.com/post/thanksgiving-14-digital-cameras</title><entry><id>tag:sursumcorda.salemsattic.com,2018:/isso/577/2214</id><title>Comment #2214</title><updated>2010-11-14T21:11:54Z</updated><author><name>Eric</name></author><link href="https://sursumcorda.salemsattic.com/post/thanksgiving-14-digital-cameras#isso-2214" /><content type="html">&lt;p&gt;Digital cameras rock, Linda, and help us amateur photographers snap decent pictures.  As a rule of thumb, most of us need &amp;quot;2 to the X&amp;quot; number of shots to get a decent picture, with &amp;quot;X&amp;quot; being the number of people in the picture.  So, you can see, its geometric.  One person can be shot with two pictures, two with four, but try to take a family of 5 for a Christmas picture. . .that's take 25 tries for one really good one (and more when one of the kids is fed up and starts crying).  So, we're very thankful for digital cameras!&lt;/p&gt;</content></entry></feed>