Thanks for the kind offer of a sample print. I have no idea whether the labs I use for color prints do as well as possible. I have a print on my desk of an E100G shot (not closeup) taken with a Perkeo II that has an 80/3.5 Color Skopar. The tranny's soft everywhere -- possibly the lens isn't all that sharp at, IIRC, f/11, possibly I'm not steady enough -- but the print is no softer. The lab that made it will print on glossy paper if asked, for sharpness that's a better surface and any of the various mattes. Thing is, at 8-12x, every image I've ever put on film, with the possible exception of some copy stand shots at relatively large apertures, is soft. This is partly, as I've said, because I often shoot stopped down too far, but happens even when I don't.
I prefer evaluating original transparencies and negatives to evaluating scans and prints from scans for the reasons you brought forward. I'm not anti-digital like many here, but when working with film going to digital in order to evaluate what one has seems, um, incorrect. Stupid,even.
Funny you should mention movements. Practically speaking, my little Graphics' only useful movement is front rise, and in closeup work moving the camera is better. I don't miss movements much when working closeup, I can usually make the film plane parallel to the intended plane of best focus. Landscapes are another matter entirely.
IMO Velveeta is sharp enough, but the colors are false. I remember shots of a Sicydium with brilliant blue in its dorsal fins. They came out correctly on KM, velvety black on Velveeta. For me, that was the end of RVP.
My other objection to Velveeta, if it really is an ISO 50 film, is that it is too fast. KM is at least a stop faster than I really need. The people who love fast films don't try to do close up work out-of-doors with flash illumination. With ISO 100 film it takes quite a fast shutter speed to reduce ambient enough in the worst situations; my 35 mm SLRs' 1/250 synch speed can't quite do it, another reason for using a Copal #1 (1/400) or SynchroCompur #1 (1/500) with my macro lenses on the Graphic. I mourned seriously when KM was discontinued and I realised I'd have to use an ISO 100 E6 emulsion in my Nikons.
I agree with you that 6x7 and 6x9 aren't that different. But my guru, such as he is, A. A. Blaker made the point in Field Photography that the returns to moving up in format without at least doubling both dimensions of the frame aren't worth the trouble. 24x36 doubled is 48x72, so a long 6x7 just meets Blaker's criterion, but 6x9 beats it. And that's why I went 6x9. I don't regret it, but many people are happy with 6x7.