Yeah, no doubt. And all that hoopla about Da Vinci - I mean come on. A picture of some chick in black with barely a smile on her face? What's the big deal? I've seen giclee's of that stupid picture for less than a hundred bucks. Heck, if you can find the right issue, you can just tear apart a National Geographic and frame the print from that. Yeah, don't get it at all. Idiots.
"Is "alternative process" and excuse for boring subject matter?"
Whenever one see a photograph from LF he expect more, he searces through to find what it is that disqualify him, what it is he cannot make with his beloved Canon. However this search requires some kind of skill called -aesthetic experience-. Failing (usally happen) to find that special point make him happy for he can say my Canon photographs are nothing behind, even "better".
All of that "alt photographs" are contact prints from LF cameras. That cameras are very heavy, slow, upside-down, black cloth over the head, req. large and heavy tripod,....
They can capture only some narow strip of pictures. These are very different from pictures made with Canon. Their (LF) existance is necessary for some technical and aesthetical points that are difficult to understand to 35 mm shooter.
In LF photography there are crapy photogs like just anywhere. One just expect that any photographer that shoot shoes is an artist, and when see bad picture diapointment.
However no way that Canon or any 35 mm produce, in its the best, what is capable with LF. Just different subject matter is around.
I do not think that A.Adams or Weston made crapy picures, just do not expect that anyone is artist even if he use LF.