In applied science, resolution has always been, and still is, an important issue. Since it is not unambiguously defined, it is interpreted in many ways. In this paper, which reviews the concept of optical resolution, a number of these interpretations are discussed. A discussion of resolution has to be preceded by a discussion of what is actually understood by an ‘‘optical image.’’ In a remarkable paper, Ronchi1 distinguished ethereal images, calculated images, and detected images. The term ethereal image was introduced only to represent the physical nature of the imaging phenomenon. As is customary in science in general, attempts have been made to give a mathematical representation of this phenomenon, both geometrically and algebraically. According to Ronchi, the images that have thus been calculated are mere mathematical constructions and should therefore be called calculated images. In the past, many approaches to the concept of resolution concerned these calculated images. This resulted in the so-called classical resolution criteria, such as Rayleigh’s criterion and the associated reciprocal bandwidth of the image. These criteria provide resolution limits that are determined solely by the calculated shape of the point-spread function associated with the imaging aperture and the wavelength of the light. From now on, they will be called classical resolution limits. Calculated images are by their very nature exactly describable by a mathematical model and thus noise free. Such images do not occur in practice. Therefore Ronchi stated that the resolution of detected images is much more important than the classical resolution, since it provides practical information about the imaging system employed. Hence one should consider primarily the resolution of detected images instead of that of calculated images. This means a necessary introduction of some new quantities of interest, such as the energy of the source and the sensitivity properties of the detector. Since Ronchi’s paper, further research on resolution— concerning detected images instead of calculated ones— has shown that in the end, resolution is limited by systematic and random errors resulting in an inadequacy of the description of the observations by the mathematical model chosen. This important conclusion was independently drawn by many researchers who were approaching the concept of resolution from different points of view, which will be discussed in the subsequent sections.