test 4/6

What can be said about images that hasn't already been said (unless perhaps new technologies foster neural enhancement)? The quality/qualities of an image can be discussed (and overlooked) ad nauseam. Context (as if it were independent) is (a) quality we discuss ad nauseam. (What would relation(ship)s be without it?)

It goes without saying that we each want to find quality/s we consider "good." (How to demonstrate the good?) A person's criteria for something being good is probably unique (consensus presumably asymptotic (pardon this last word if you think it misused)).

The criteria, tenets, precepts, etc. we each adhere to define the nature (not in the physical sciences sense) of the images we behold. Are images anything other than nature, i.e. don't images co-define the human (that quite natural quotient)?

The image (er, file (a large-ish JPEG)) joined to this metadata is fully qualitative. It may be considered artificial. To its author(?)'s eye, it's degraded.