My pet peeve is when readers are too literal with the pictures. Like, in the way that "Oh, the wo/man from the 5 of X is looking at the Page of Y! This *must* refer to a connection meaning..." To me, the images in the cards serve to illustrate and remind us as readers what cards mean. Yes, imagining the pictures telling a story is a handy way to conceptualize and narrativize the spread, but just because a person (or animal or object) in one card is looking at or pointing to something or someone in another doesn't actually mean anything, does it?
Plus, the images from deck to deck can be so wildly different that I just can't accept that the images themselves have any bearing on the readings between the cards.
I certainly think that other factors (including but not limited to card positions, numerological meanings and interactions, and sign or suit interactions) are important for getting a better read on the cards, but it annoys me when a reader insists that the way the *pictures* are configured have a particular significance.