The photographer needs to decide if they are happy for someone else to change the photographer's art that they may have worked a long time on into something else. Personally I want the 16bit TIFF I give them printed exactly the way it is.
Well, that is a bit subjective. If you print your own images you may actually claim to be in control and say that every change was intentional, but we know it will not be entirely true. The printing process frequently imposes changes that you cannot avoid, leaving you only with the option of accepting it or tossing the print. Changes will occur in the process. On the other hand, predicting and counteracting/minimizing this changes when possible is part of the printer's job... so, if the printer is actively working to make your printed image represent more closely your digital file, can you say he is interfering with the artists view?
Note that on a proper "commercial fine art printing environment" nothing should happen
automatically the artist is supposed to be present and the printer will show him the problems, suggest the possible alternatives and will only take actions with the artist's consent. Some artist will say "print as it is", some will say "do whatever you think is needed" and some will suggest different approaches. The key factor is: the so called "commercial fine art printer" acts as an advisor and may perform the adjustments, but the final decisions should always come from the artist.
That is why I always say the proper "commercial fine art printing workflow" must have the artist present. Obviously that is unnecessary on reprints and somehow less important when the artist has a "style" the printer is familiarized with. But even so, many artists choose the "do whatever you want" approach, leaving the printer in control. I understand your restrictions to this approach (I would never do it myself), but we may not forget that many famous photographers (actualy, MOST) did that. Ansel Adams was more an exception than an example of the majority.