Hmmm... certainly thought-provoking.
I love the concept of "trame" and certainly concur with what Andrew says about the importance of what's going on outside the frame that we, as observers of the photograph do not see, but must imply/intuit from the image. At least, that's my take away and it is something I have always striven to accomplish in my nature and landscape work, more often than not, falling short.
Interestingly, though, Andrew really only applies the concept to either single shots that include people OR a series that does not include people. Both the "flower-and-ring" and the "Vancouver leaf" rely on other photos to provide "trame". While comparing the first and second photos does support his point, they are actually too different to be entirely supportive. The "people" shot with and without the man looking OR the landscape/nature shot with and without "atmosphere" would make the point more clearly.
To be entirely successful, the best landscape photographs also provide/have "trame", but not in a human, backstory way. Rather, the successful landscapes (devoid of people) draw the viewer into the scene and allow them to experience the conditions, the atmosphere, the feeling of "being there" at that moment. Successful landscapes with "trame" allow the viewer to feel the cold air freezing their nostril hairs or the dusty heat of the savanna. Disappointingly, most landscapes fall far short of this, yet, as Andrew points out, they may be "pretty".
Thanks, Andrew, for this great perspective on what "makes" a photograph "work". Hopefully, the word and concept of "trame" will make it into serious critique of photographs.