What are these guys doing - walking on water, or similar?
Actually, this picture illustrates a phenomenon that's been troubling me - well, inviting my attention - these past few months: what is it about some photographs that allows them to be very interesting indeed, but absolutely not material for the wall? I can't really think of another medium where there are such obvious decorative purposes yet so many instances where decoration isn't what it's ultimately about. Street (however you might care to define it) fits into this for me: very interesting but not something I'd think of putting up on the walls of my home. Landscape is another such - I see painting as far more likely to get that hook; about the only use I can honestly see for photography on the wall, as decoration, is black/white hanging in some city loft somewhere, and then probably a nude of some sort; a statement, if you will.
On the other hand, I see photography as having an almost exclusively 'right' home within books, where painting doesn't look at ease. Also, I think photography looks very much in its element in galleries, and it's ironic that they (photographs) are only there in order to be transported to another location where they will probably not look so good.
So really, I doubt very much that it boils down to whether or not an image is good or otherwise, but has far more deeply hidden factors at play.
Rob C