Everyone seems to see everything as black and white, and interpret everything written so narrowly and literally.
There are many aspects to great images, and certainly the most important is the artistic/aesthetic quality of the print. I've never advocated or stated anything about technical quality being the predominate element of a great image. But just because you put a great composition and subject on a print, you can certainly miss the boat technically to the point that the image falls far short of it's potential. Ansel Adams was a great photographer, partially because of his outstanding technical expertise and skill.
I'm also just stating my opinion that you can only push digital files so far before the technology can limit the experience, no matter how great the image is. This really isn't the technical fault of a photographer, usually it's just a budget constraint ... something that has become less and less of a factor over the past 15 years since the first 2 mp dSLR's came out costing over $20,000. How far you can go depends on many factors, certainly the most important being the perspective of the creator of the work. In the example by bill, it doesn't sound like we're talking about anything very large, 40" is certainly doable for a good capture from a 16mp camera and is really just a nice decent size for most walls. It sounds like they all were created by a skilled photographer with a great eye as well as great technical expertise. That's why he chose them. I'm guessing all can handle decently close scrutiny if an observer so chooses to do so. But that doesn't mean the opposite cannot occur, and indeed I've seem some terrific images print as very large prints destined to be hung in very nice homes that even Bill would probably not be so keen on.
My home is full of my work. Most of the images are in the 48" range, some a little smaller, some a little larger. Most are shot with MFDB, but some are with various dSLR"s I've used over the years as well. I"ve also observed many people as they come into my home and take some time to look at the work. And I would agree, no one has ever stated "wow, those are technically fantastic". But on the other hand, I have seen many who after looking at print, suddenly decide to walk up closer and look at the detail in the field of lavender, or examine the sky to discover what they were seeing from 10 feet away was actually a crescent moon in the evening sky. Or comment on how real the petals of the bougainvillea look. As with many things, qualities can exist that might be extremely subtle yet can be part of the experience of seeing, tasting, or hearing ... and usually those experiencing it can't really describe the factors that are involved in their feelings.
This isn't a black and white, cut and dry issue here. It is very complex, extremely variable, and the audience goes from people who could care less about photographic images to those that obsess over them.
And my apologies for diverting this thread off topic.