michael...
read my two last posts here, im talking about the conection about the singular and universal. u dont have to photograph universal. they have no ontological existance (not in my opinion) so u cannot see them. universals are our mental creation whenever we think. if be percept something - that is singular, but if we "think about it, talk about it than we relate to those singulars in terms of universals. there is no other way to think but by the universals (properties, generalizations etc etc.). wehn u see the expression of human for example... what do i see... only the expression. i see the person, i sense the atmospher, but than u call it "happy" "sad" "paasionate" etc etc, u difine it by the universals. if some person is "sad" for example, u cannot feel his sadness. u recognize it by the physiology, and then by realte it to "sadness" upon your expiriance in life. from here u only can asosiate that sadness with something from your memory wether with particular memory of yours or some memory of that sense. the sense "of sadness" it can rize itself to and then u can feel some compation or solidarity etc. the conection of the singularity and universal is an mental act. when we see the singular case by image or by verbal story etc, this mental act is a part of our imidiate interpretation.
in reality, we behave this way (the mental behaviour of linking singular to universal) so naturally that we hardly can distinguish between them. we are not normally conscious with this behaviour itself. normally, we are conscious of what we think and not how we think.