I simply can’t buy into your new philosophy that crisp crap is better than fuzzy crap. Crap is crap, period.
The only crap that is crap, period, is the literal crap sometimes known as feces or poop. I'm sure that the scientists who study fossilized dinosaur poop would not be at all interested in fuzzy pictures of their coprolites.
However, using the term in its metaphorical and pejorative sense as you intended, what may appear crap to one person, may not appear crap to another. In fact, sometimes just the opposite. There are people in the 'art' world who have become very rich selling what some people would consider as total crap, as I'm sure you are aware.
Also, I can think of no time when I felt tempted to dig deeply into other people’s happy snaps looking for the minutiae of their lives or, at the very least, of the moment they were immortalised in silver! Frankly, I have usually dreaded the moment when the album comes out. It usually coincides with that pressing engagement I’d forgotten, and thanks for reminding me!
Would that also apply in the case of the happy snaps of you as a young kid, or your parents as teenagers, or your grandparents and great grandparents.? Or perhaps your forebears didn't use cameras.
Would that also apply if the happy snaps were razor sharp, large prints taken with a D800, instead of fuzzy postcards processed in an automated fashion at KMart? Even if the composition were crap, would you not recognize in a sharp image, perhaps a certain face in a group, or a puppy on someone's lap with an interesting expression, that might make a reasonable A4 size portrait after cropping and contrast enhancement etc?
I suscribe to the view that most images can be improved by some judicious cropping and Photoshop processing. The sharper and more detailed the original image is, whether film or digital, the greater the possibilities of improvement.
I'm reminded of the first time I came across The Luminous Landscape site. The great controversal discussion at that time was the performance of Canon's first DSLR, the 3mp D30. Michael had just written a review of the camera claiming that it produced better and more pleasing results than 35mm film. Such a claim was 'over the top' for many people. How could a mere 3mp of picture information rival 35mm film.
Well, it was later confirmed by other sources that at least up to A4 size, the 3mp DSLR produced better results than 35mm film. At A3 print size, 35mm film might have begun to show a resolution edge, but the D30 would still have retained that smoothness due to a lack of grain that one associates with MF film.
Now all those who keep repeating that they never print at a size that would benefit from 36mp, seem to me to be a bit myopic. A Nikon D800 pixel is certainly better than the old Canon D30 pixel, so whatever quality at A4 size that was produced by that ancient 3mp D30, would be exceeded in some respects by a 3mp crop from the D800, depending on lens quality.
Let's consider the implications for someone who never prints larger than A4. What happens when we make a 3mp crop from the centre of a D800 image? We effectively get the equivalent of a 3mp cropped-format camera, but with a greater crop factor than the 1.6x of the D30. A bit of simple maths reveals that the crop factor would be 3.5x.
The implications are, a top quality 100mm prime on a D800 can double up as a medium quality 350mm telephoto zoom, producing results sufficient for A4 size prints. Wow!