I think both John and Ryan make excellent points.
John, makes reference to people perhaps not wanting to buy certain photographs because they look like they could do them just as well. I think there's a lot of truth in that. What's the joke? How many photographers does it take to screw in a lightbulb? Answer: 50, 1 to screw in the bulb and 49 to say,"I could have done that".
With this understanding I attempt ( I hope I succeed) to make images that are special, that is images that may be of a special, or more uncommon moment. I think there are far too many landscapes shot in the tripod holes of those who came before, although it's getting harder to find places that have not been shot before. But I don't consider that to be a sin, what I consider a sin is that if you're going to shoot an overshot scene do something new with it, and not just print it on exotic watercolor paper using iridium. Be there when the light and atmospherics are extraordinary, that means waiting out the shot, going back there at the peak times of the day, day after day after day until you really get something. Do not roll out of the tour bus with 49 other daytrippers and expect that stunning image of Tunnel View at 1 pm. So much of the photography flooding the internet seems to be done this way.
After much cajoling from galleries I have started to produce much larger prints, prints 40" and up. I have done this for many reasons, mostly because the way my style is developing larger works better and many of my new images need the size to show certain details. But other reasons for the size are marketing. Larger prints are very competitive with paintings and many buyers want large art. Another factor is that your typical photographer or gallery shopper will see a big print, done with a larger camera than they use, printed better than they could print, and just plain huge. They know they can't do that.
Ryan mentions photographers that get too caught up in the technical process at the expense of the image itself. I see this all the time, impeccably alt printed images of the most boring subject matter.
I don't want to denigrate those that shoot with huge banquet cameras, but most of the work that I have seen done using a gigantic camera tends to be very static and have average lighting at best. Granted the technical image quality is astounding, but I think you go out to shoot with one foot in a bucket when you work ULF. How much film and film holders can you carry? How dead calm does the wind need to be when the camera uses a mainsail for a bellows? How far can you hike with a camera that requires a Class IV trailer hitch to tow? Now to each their own, and I understand that for many it's the process of photography that is the enjoyment. But I am speaking here from a results POV. I have found it critically important to wait out scenes because conditions always change, sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse. That is why I have chosen to shoot panoramic MF. When I come to a scene and it looks pretty good, I'll shoot a few frames, and then I'll wait. If it gets better I'll shoot some more and then wait still. I'll keep doing this until it looks like there's no chance of getting anything better. I think that greatly improves the odds that I'll get that rainbow or God Light or whatever it is that makes a scene more unique. ULF with it's film quantity limitations you have to commit when you think the light is it's best, and that is very unpredictable. I think that the image quality of a 20x24" camera produced contact print is just startling, and that may lend itself to the " I couldn't do that" quality that helps sell a photograph, but if the image itself is not great the photograph itself becomes more a novelty than a means of expression.