Is the technical accuracy a necessity, or just another artistic choice? Like Lex, I always preferred the sound of an old tube amp. I just didn't have access to a Marshall stack :P
I dunno or care whether Fenders or Gibsons are more technically accurate other than to say, I had a Gretsch Country Gentleman, a Fender Stratocaster (a real one, not a cheap a$$ Squire wannabe) and a Les Paul Custom. I still have the Les Paul - it has a "fatter" sound that I like. The Gretsch ran a real close second place. The Fender sounded just a touch "thin" to me. But, plug a Strat into an old tube Super Reverb amp and it just sings.
So back to film... unless you are totally color blind, you could say that black and white is wrong. We see in color. Even color film does not capture the range of colors and brightness we see. It can never do that, because the camera itself can only expose at one f/stop and one speed for each shot and the film has limits too. Our eyes constantly stop down and open up, and our brains take care of the rest. So, nothing is really accurate when we try to photograph it. We can only try to make something that is pleasing to look at. Technically, Ansel Adams is wrong... nobody can simultaneously focus near and far. But look at the results he got.
I don't care about the "general public" because like I said before, I do this for my own self. It's very liberating. I don't have to worry about keeping up with the latest fad, I don't have to depend on "the public" for a paycheck, and I don't care if they "don't care". Let's face it... the general public can be pretty weird and tacky with their trends. If you try to anticipate the next big thing you will go nuts. If you just try to keep up you will go nuts. To hell with that, I am already half a bubble off plumb.