What is "nature" in "Monday in Nature"

I thought that I would start a new thread rather than continue in the Monday in Nature thread.

Tim brings up an interesting question about posting soap bubble photographs in the MiN threads and mentions one of several potential issues, for example where and, implicitly, how the photograph was taken, say, in his kitchen.

Personally, and this is fuzzy, the guidelines of MiN limit less where than what, and by that I mean it is ok, for example, to post shots of captive animals (where) but not captive animals in cages or wild animals with tracking collars on them (what). So, a shot of a paramecium taken under a microscope (good luck getting a shot of a paramecium in the wild!) in a studio would be ok.

Shots of bubbles may be trickier. I have no problem with shots in a studio, kitchen, whatever (where). A potential problem for me - and some might argue that this is a nitpick - is that soaps are largely synthetic (hand of man) and therefore photos of soap bubbles are, by definition, photos of synthetic objects (what). One could argue, perhaps, that the process of bubble formation is a natural process (e.g. there are biological surfactants which can enhance bubble formation) and therefore should be allowed but this opens the door to many processes that, although potentially beautiful and fascinating, I don't think are appropriate for MiN. For example I have some macro shots of rust on an iron spike which washed up on the shore. Cool looking and natural process for sure but not MiN material in my opinion, alas ;) Certain streams seem to have relatively high biosurfactant content and produce copious bubbles - that would be ok even if shot in the kitchen.

This issue does make me rethink some photos I may have posted in the past, for example a photomicrograph of a stained (synthetic) cross section of a plant root. By the above reasoning that should not be allowed, I think.

Not ok: Bubbles from Dial hand soap:

Not OK: Condensed smoke (condensation = "natural" process) from a fire (combustion = "natural" process) in my wood stove

OK: bubbles in a stream

Edwin, this topic has already been discussed many times in the past. Clearly there are a lot of gray areas, and I have no illusion that there will ever be consensus about it. To make life easier for us, we simply use Photographic Society of America's definition for "nature photography" so that we can tell people that we are merely using some industry standard rather than coming up with some obscure requirements on our own: Definition of Nature | Photographic Society of America

And I have already reposted the guidelines yesterday: Monday in Nature Guildelines, and I locked that thread on purpose.

We have had Monday in Nature for over four years with relatively few issues. We use these threads to share nature images and have some fun. The purpose is not to nit pick obscure issues or debate endlessly about what is nature photography and what is not. If anybody has difficulty following such guildelines, I think it is best that they pick another forum without these restrictions. For example, you can post pretty much any image to Nikon Wednesday, as long as you claim that the image is captured with some Nikon equipment, e.g. Nikon body or lens, and it is impossible for us to verify that each image posted there is indeed captured with some Nikon equipment. In like 10 years of Nikon Wednesday, I have only deleted one image, mainly due to the pornographic nature of that image. Similarly, the Canon EOS Forum welcomes various images as long as they are captured with EOS equipment.

By the same token, I am also locking this thread.