I actually use different strategies, depending upon the subject. With Nikon work, I tend to choose high-speed films for spontaneity and maybe
to create a poetic description deliberatety divested of fine detail. I tend to print these quite small. At the other extreme, yesterday I was
printing a 30x40 (inch) from an 8x10 color neg where the whole point of the composition is to lead the eye into the extreme detail. The overall
composition would have certainly "worked" if it had been shot with 35mm, but it wouldn't have had that wealth or wow effect that the extreme
detail gives it. Nobody is going to view this thing just from the "normal viewing distance" unless they have vision problems. And it has nothing
to do with "pixel peeping" or attempting to sleuth technique. I print optically anyway. But in such instances, it wouldn't make much of a difference if the original was 35mm or 6x7. It would be a ball of mush at 30x40, so the grain or something else has to make the print interesting in some other respect - which can be done - but it's a whole different printing strategy. Frankly, every time someone tells me
how sharp their big print was from one of these smaller formats, I have good reason to doubt they ever have seen a sharp print in their life.
I hear this kind of nonsense all the time, esp from the digital kids.