Why do you need to pixel peep their skin?Ok. Was modesty part of your training?:-)
I'd suggest that if you are aiming for 1+ meter wide landscape panoramas, that high resolution is a good thing, especially for those that push their nose up against the print to investigate details.
mmmm yeah yeah .... You should ask a fashion/beauty photographers to ask why High Res is needed, and, you should print more to see some facts by your eyes. Pixels was a marketing plot as well as "DR" is one today and "pixels" have nothing to do with DR. Until the venue of the D600, the DR king was the fuji S5 pro, period. How much pixel have the fuji S5 Pro ??
Now, lets speak about pixel and printing :
This print is out of my Roland printer (not even a real photo printer) on canvas, 120 cm by 80 cm. The photo is done with a simple SD15, 800ISO at 4.7 Million pixels. You can even see the bristles of the fur. You know what ?? when I got my D700 12 MP, he just come slightly over at the same size but with Zeiss lenses ... With the SIGMA DP merrill (15MP), you can only dream how far you can push the print without really loosing detail ...
The DP Merrill with 15 Million Pixel out-resolve the whole 24 MP range of cameras out there today.
A perfectly scanned 135 film (only) done with modern glass, can out-resolve the whole 24 MP range of cameras out there today. Dynamic range of film is awesome and film is far to be dead. Film do not need "PP" if photo is correctly done.
Do not think that we, on Lu-La or other forums, are the common mass of photographers. Common mass of photographers do not print. We are a niche and ppl who print bigger than A3 are a niche in the niche, in the real world of photography today. Photos today are stored on HDD Nas close to the router or carved on DVD or stacked in 10x15 prints or in the memory of the Iphone.
36mp is nice, 300 is even better. I tend to agree that the more the better, even in relatively small prints it adds something to the reality of the print, a somehow hard to describe sense of infinite depth, almost fractal in nature. But I am getting carried away.
Besides, we know super high res large screens are just a few years down the road, they will be our standard soon. If I shoot images today with the intend of making them Hifi, then I sure hope they will still look hifi in 10 years from now when 100mp will be common place and used in our everyday display media. Just like Ansel Adams prints still somehow work today because they were shot by very high standards back then, I see no reason not to go for 300 megapixels today considering how easy it is.
Now we come to Bernard point of view. Bernard speak about the "reality" added to the shoot when using High Res. But, In my opinion I do not take photos to make it a perfect gimmick of reality, never ever !! It is why some software are so popular
>> DXO film pack, Niksoftware color efex, Instagram .... MANY people do not like the reality out of there digital cameras !! this create a perfect tech market
Shooting film have sooo much soul, bring sooo much to the mood of a photo !! Film is not dead.
What make Ansel Adams prints that good to the human eye
Large Format !! not resolution. Only the perspective captured by a very big sensitive plan. What you see on Ansel Adams prints, you can't see it by your eyes just because of the perspectives (and you can't reproduce it without a LF camera too).
Well... this is just my opinion after all