That sounds more along the lines of normal "wear and tear".
If you deduct for such damages and the tenant sues for the return of the security deposit, you might have a hard time convincing the court that its damage and not wear and tear. If the court decides the tenant is the prevailing party, you could face triple damages being award, along with court fees and attorney fees, which will be more than the damages cost. I don't understand why landlords think that tenants are going to not hang pictures, etc. It's better to restrict how the tenant can hang things without causing damage. Such as using proper picture hooks. If course your lease covers this, I hope?
Verbally our tenants usually do not ask us about hanging pictures. I use the LPA lease from about couple of years ago. The lease does not have particular language about nail holes but does specify that the tenant needs to return the unit in condition for re-renting which was not the case. Do you recommend particular language for picture hooks and if so what is it? We charged tenant $50 for the holes and $100 for heavy touch up.
California landlord tenant law states that the tenant shall return the rental property back to the landlord in the same condition as received "Less wear and tear". Some holes from hanging pictures is expected. What the landlord would want to prevent is unnecessary large holes or large nails and especially adhesive hangers that damage the wall when removed.