I fully understand the OP's thoughts. I have always found that I can take photographs I'm proud of when I isolate a piece of the landscape. When it comes to the beautiful vistas - it just seems I cannot do it justice.

Case in point - over the summer I visited the Western Isles of Scotland for the first time. I had great cloud formations, great lighting - and the vistas were just awe-inspiring and magnificent. In 20 or so rolls of 6x7 there are maybe five frames that I consider worth pursuing. These five frames are of what I consider detail - ships in a harbour, coiled rope by a fishing boat etc. None of the true landscapes comes even close to conveying what I saw - or thought I saw; and yet I had before me some of the most magnificent, "photogenic" scenery I have ever seen! And there I was with the orange filters and the polarizers making masterpiece after masterpiece.

I should have known better. After 30 odd years I have never taken a wide view scenic that matches what I felt at the time. Sure, I was "bummed" but, in the end, I suspect that I'm not a "big picture" photographer. Does that make me a bad photographer or a failed one? I don't think so. I just have to be prepared for disappointment when I take the big scene - 'cos I know I'll keep taking them

Bob H