Yeah, I pretty much suck at it. The reason is that nature virtually never presents anything spectacular.

This conversation could get pretty in depth actually. I recognize that all photography is an interpretation; lens focal length, perspective, framing, lighting, exposure, weather, time of day... exposure blending, filters... even format (micro? APS-C? 35mm? medium? large? ultra large format?) and film (if relevant: B&W silver emulsion vs. negative colour vs. transparency colour - various saturation levels, contrasts, etc) - these are all choices a photographer makes to manipulate reality.

Say I'm shooting a very small demonstration - e.g. seven people holding signs in the middle of a big public square.. do I get down low and stand really close, making it look like I'm in the middle of a mob? Or do I step back and show the small group amidst the virtually empty surroundings? Choices - manipulations of one form or another.

There's nothing intrinsically wrong with adding another element, like a leaf or a mist spray - but it's just not what I enjoy. I like working with what I find - the act of hunting for that treasure - that chance collision of elements - is where the joy is for me.

The other day I found a perfectly clean, gleaming white, completely intact salmon lower jawbone laying on a black sand beach, with the setting sun partly occluded by cloud casting warm light and long shadows on it and giving texture to the beach. Finding that scene was itself as much joy as photographing it. The object itself was interesting and could have been moved somewhere else as a prop for a more complex scene... but I liked it as I found it. The circumstances becoming aligned, by chance, to make the image work are part of the fascination for me.