I’m sorry, DT. I appreciate you taking the time to reply, but I’ve read your post several times and yet I can’t seem to make out it’s meaning. The meaning of the whole seems to be more than the sum of the meaning of each word, and I’m afraid that it eludes me. You’re going to have to dumb it down for me (ELI5 perhaps!).

However, I was wondering if “nature has a standard for beauty” means that you are saying that only beautiful things are ‘allowed’ by nature. If that IS what that sentence means, I don’t think you can make that conclusion based on the limited data that is mine and Sometime’s photos. Obviously there IS beauty in nature (or at least, we 3 agree there is beauty in the photographs of nature), but think of all of nature that we DON’T photograph. I could potentially take thousands and thousands of photos each day, and yet I don’t. Out of all of the photos that I do take, only a few get put on this site.

I take photos of things that I like because I find them interesting and/or beautiful in some way, which is incredibly subjective. Of the photos that I keep, they convey what my eye saw or I experienced in a fair way, in my subjective experience - it is quite difficult at times to get the camera to capture what the mind experiences, because the technologies of cameras and of eyes and brains are very different. And then I post only those photos which illustrate or convey whatever message I am trying to convey here.

I don’t know if that makes sense, or is even in anyway relevant to what your post meant, but there it is...

*Willow*