Good, someone disagrees with me, even better, it's Chuck who's a good photographer so he's speaking from experience. Of course, in some ways I'm with Chuck. I happen to think that print quality is extremely important, but the points I made about how the vast majority of people who admire famous photographers have never seen an original print still stand. Truth is their reputations are largely made through reproductions in magazines and books, and to a lesser degree (so far) from the web.
Here's two really important questions:
1) Can you think of a situation in which you really admired a person's work in reproduction, only to later see original prints and decide you didn't like his work after all?
2) Can you think of any situation in which you didn't like a person's work then saw the original prints and changed your mind?
I can't think of any examples of either situation for myself and I'd be interested in hearing from anyone who has had either of the above happen and how it came about. I'm sure it does happen, but probably not all that often.
If Chuck can't think of any examples of either of the above scenarios, does it simply mean that he like me, feels the whole process is important to him, from conception to finished print and that less than stellar quality in any aspect of the image is unacceptable to ourselves in our own work. I don't think that's the same at all. I'm sure that a great musician fusses over every single detail, often details the rest of us aren't even aware of, yet could walk down the street, hear an organ grinder and go, wow, what a great tune!
Back to you, Chuck.