This definitely is something to think about. I found this on the page Wikipedia has on Robert Frank: "Quality doesn't mean deep blacks and whatever tonal range. That's not quality, that's a kind of quality. The pictures of Robert Frank might strike someone as being sloppy - the tone range isn't right and things like that - but they're far superior to the pictures of Ansel Adams with regard to quality, because the quality of Ansel Adams, if I may say so, is essentially the quality of a postcard. But the quality of Robert Frank is a quality that has something to do with what he's doing, what his mind is. It's not balancing out the sky to the sand and so forth. It's got to do with intention." (Elliot Erwitt) To me that rang very true of how I appreciate photography. There is a lot of talk about perfect negatives and perfect tonal scale prints, and I am certainly guilty of indulging in some of that too. But what really matters to me, in the end, is to make photographs that feel important. As nice as it would be to get on posters or in picture frames at IKEA, I don't feel like I'm doing the art of photography any favors unless I am true to myself and photograph what I find important and of value. With that said, I still think it's important to try to make the best print one can make, tonally, for visual impact. But it's a much smaller piece to me than what the picture represents subject matter wise. I am, frankly, pretty tired of all the technical stuff surrounding photography, and I've come to realize that I need to have a very clear focus on what I actually wish to accomplish with my work and to start focusing on it. Good riddance, photographers. What's your agenda with all of this?