Dave, partial quote:
"Wanting to take a photography is a feeling, but how deep is that feeling? How does a macro shot, a nature shot, a local newspaper journalism shot qualify with that same depth of feeling, yet they are all photographs taken by a photographer, again depending on how you qualify a photographer?"
Excellent point, Dave. Though there's not an easy answer, I feel anyway....
Macro photography most often falls short in some regards, even with the convenience of digital. There's many good macro photographers on the net, but way more who never consider what goes into making a "good photograph." Seldom, is the "rule of thirds" considered, much less general placement of subject & use of "free space."
For those who enjoy insects, unless they're willing to use captured, cold or dead specimens, it's not possible to follow rules for every shot. I could easily improve my portfolio if I were willing to capture & kill, but I find the occasional "good shot" more rewarding by sticking with my personal standards. It's also difficult, unless you have an open, natural area to work in, to make the best use of natural light. So there has to be compromise for various types of photography. For macro the one rule which should never be broken though, is to be sure the subjects in focus, and showing detail.
Landscape has it's own standards too. "Rule of thirds" should be applied, but it's not to say it can't be broken and still have a good shot. But here again, area being worked in has much to do with making photos which catch the eye of "The mass." Most times, what does catch the eye is that which isn't common. And with the billions of photos we're exposed to on the net, it's more difficult than anytime in history to "stand out" from the crowd.
I really feel this has much to do with the original comment of the thread. Experimenting is "key" to honing skills today. The Computer Darkroom offers greater manipulation choice than we ever had using film. And it's just as necessary to learn it's use, as learning the controls of a camera.
"The Rules" were the first thing learned when I started out, but today, that's not necessarily the case. Rules are made to be broken, but having the proper foundation to "work from" should be taken more seriously. And I think, this is what Sean is expressing. The problem is, words can't speak the volume of visualization, as demonstrated with Smith's photo. But as Dave points out, how often does one genuinely come upon a situation like it? Perhaps, this is a starting point to where the line between photography, and art is crossed? No, manipulation isn't new, but there are times when it's not acceptable. This is where I feel documentary comes in, and it's standards should be of the highest:
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/farid/research/digitaltampering/ Regardless of one's thoughts concerning such things, the only way to improve, is to keep shooting. Often, it's when we feel we've exhausted the photo possibilities of a subject, we find a "new eye" which embraces what we've missed. If anyone asks, "why bother?" Simply say:
"Because it's there."