Yup, you got that right. I've sold fine art prints through art galleries and to restaurants, where images are put to close scrutiny. Also, while processing images, only by viewing them at 1:1 magnification can I properly remove lens fringing, apply the exact amount of noise reduction, prevent colour/highlight clipping, judge corner softness and apply the right amount of sharpening for print. While interpolating images, judging enlarged images for detail at 1:1 magnification is again critical. But of course, like I said earlier, this is only done in case of 'good' images (good composition, good light and the moment like Wouter mentioned) that someone showed interest in buying or in case of images printed for fine art shows. However, this is half the story! I can't find the old Serious Compacts blog for which I had written an article about using 'technically imperfect' images, I invite you to read it on my blog:
Mayank's Viewpoint » Blog Archive » Serious Use of Compact Camera Images in Graphic Design, a Note
Mayank's Viewpoint » Blog Archive » Serious Use of Compact Camera Images in Graphic Design, a Note
My house is like an exhibition, all walls are packed with prints, every wall in every room has prints..... some are larger other are larger.... the most "packing" images according to myself, and other viewers are ones which have no technical quality what so ever, Pinholes shot on 9x6 film, and a lot of really old digital compacts which according to pixel peepers produce awful quality pics. They all do however have an atmospheric quality, far from sharp, far from limited noise but all with a certain zing to them which has absolutely nothing to do with IQ.
Unless you are actually making an income from photography, and your clients ... the well paying ones I mean, require 1:1 sharp perfect imagery I would always decline doing that, pixel peeping IQ more than often makes the image look like a TV screen, everything perfect, well, organized but no genuine IQ what so ever.
Perfection is so awfully boring .... and I would even classify Ansel Adams prints amongst these "boring images" if you've looked at them 4 times .. its done, over, gone .... take Rudy Burckhardt images (yes he was well known) they are technically shit, but they have the zing.
How many wally do you think Bresson has photographed in his life (add others here) ... it's just the Local "duck shooters" that peep pixels.... and why? I have no friggin clue ...
You tell me you pixel peep because you are asked to produce 20x30 prints .... well I don' even want to get into that discussion because I would find that very degenerative .....
ps. this of course is all and only very, very subjective and just reflects my views... nobody elses.