If a picture is simply meant to show you what you could not have done, then to me the picture is about that, but nothing else. It is just as uninteresting as making a 20x24 pt/pd print with that size camera just for the sake of it. They are both saying to me, very loudly in fact, that "you cannot do this, but I can" . It is a power thing to me. At the point, I am moving onto a next image hoping that I will come across an unexpected surprise.
I am more interested in seeing and, hopefully, making images that give me an interesting and unique "visual experience." To me that is the most important factor. Not "visual information" of where and how it was taken and how it was processed.
A good photograph does not make me think of all the "technicalities" of how the image came about when I see one. Whether it is about the subject matter, the equipment, shooting condition, size of film, how it was printed, and its presentation. What I find is a simple joy of looking at it.
I do think it is a two completely different terrain of thought to think you have to go to the most uncharted part of the world in order to make a good image. You can make just as good images in your backyard in my opinion (speaking of the unseen and unique). I think Harry Callahan demonstrated that very well. He took very mundane and ordinary sceneries of Michigan. Why? He liked them and knew them very well. The personal connection to his subject matters meant a lot more to him than going to a place like, Yosemite. I always find the interaction between him and Ansel Adams quite amusing...