Around this time in 2002 the ICP in New York hosted Winogrand 1964, an exhibition featuring a fair amount of color work taken on Kodachrome. A friend and I went to see it. The photos were displayed pretty big, with some ~6x4'. Huge grain and fuzzy detail from more than a few of 'em but the subject matter and composition made that all but irrelevant. I think the strong texture and lack of fine detail even enhanced our appreciation of the framing and content.
-Dave-
Which is why Sarah Moon used 500 ASA colour film for so much of her early work. Even with low magnification the grain was visible to give its intrinsic quality effect.
You need only consider that street posters were also made from 135 and 120 film quite often, and seen from the car or the pavement, those hoardings could look amazing.
It's all down to viewing distance, but even so, I think that small digital doesn't hold up nicely; grain can be attractive, but not pixels.
However, even at nominal 400/320 ASA there are differences in look when blown up very large. Ilford's fast stuff was softer, more mushy at extremes, whereas Kodak's version was harder, more crisply granular, which I guess comes down to coating techniques more than chemistry, because grain is grain and perhaps the way you pile it together makes the difference in look - or not. Grey area, so to speak.
