agree with your comments regarding FotoWillem's site. Well worth a browse!

I don't think it matters what format you shoot in, screen representation rarely do them justice. Sometimes, examining the small details of a print is part of the appreciation of that print. There are some exceptions I guess, but never having seen those images as prints, how can we tell? I can only go by my own experience and generally, my prints are far superior to my web versions (and I don't shoot LF). I've seen discussions debating the differences between transmittance and reflective lighting and I'd agree that has a lot to do with it.

In the attached pic, on the actual 8"x10" you can count the barbs on the barbwire fences, but that just doesn't get translated in a pic thats 600odd pixels wide. For some pics that sort of thing doesn't matter.

Picking up on another of your points, I no longer worry too much about the outright quality of the image shown, giving the maker the benefit of the doubt to the digitising process and try to concentrate on the image, however if there's distinct observations I can make and think they will benefit from I will add those. Half the time it a screen setup thing anyway!