Lately few people are printing their pictures, all pictures taken are viewed on screens, IMHO screens are very permissive especially when it comes to details, what's the point of high pixel count if your screen resolution is at best 1920x1080 ?
screens are very tolerant also to extreme saturations simply because it is backlit.
One common error we are committing is the noise reduction: noise isn't that ugly on paper as it is on the screen, however the smooth aspect after noise reduction is odd.
After getting back to printing I am changing my habits
With the usual proviso that we're looking at technical quality and not artistic quality, I would still want as much data to start with regardless of the output medium. After a point there may be reducing benefits, but it is always easier to throw away excess information, than try to recover it when it isn't really there. For decent screen pixel level output and to overcome the limitations of bayer pattern sensors, I'd like 2x the resolution per axis (4x area) so in that 1080p example, I'd want ~8MP as a starting point after any cropping. Affordable 4k displays are here, which is not necessarily the same as "good" 4k displays, but I can see them being much more common shortly. For pixel level quality there, I'd be targeting 16MP+. You may counter-argue, people probably shouldn't be pixel peeping at 4k...
<a class="bbc_url" href="http://snowporing.deviantart.com/">dA</a> Canon 7D2, 7D, 5D2, 600D, 450D, 300D IR modified, 1D, EF-S 10-18, 15-85, EF 35/2, 85/1.8, 135/2, 70-300L, 100-400L, MP-E65, Zeiss 2/50, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300/2.8, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Olympus E-P1, Panasonic 20/1.7, Sony HX9V, Fuji X100.
The situation today "print vs screen" is not much different in terms of viewing it than it has been in only analogue time.
Difference: While only the best projectors and slide framing technique and screen material would show us what was in our slides, we can see it these days quite easily in 100% view - which is pretty much on the latest iMac 4096 × 2304 pixel) which shows a nearly 10MP picture in full resolution. Those 5K displays have nothing to do with "your screen resolution is at best 1920x1080". The displays are approaching print resolution of 300 dpi.
And these days nobody needs to know wether I want print a picture or I only do some documentary for my website. Everything is possible, unlike restricted use of negative or slides. This decision remains open until you print it and afterwards delete all data you made for the picture. Of course I need to know how much of my sensor's dynamic range I can bring to paper but I know what's the point of high pixel count.
Actually I know better my answer to that question than the reason you came up with it. When it comes to noise I'm pretty much on the same boat.
Edit: Sorry, I looked up only the small iMac. The 27" model comes with 5120 × 2880 pixels, nearly 15 MP full resolution.
it's not only resolution, the screen is backlit paper isn't, so colors will differ dramatically even with best screens
If you don't want them differ, print on plastic film and put it in front of backlit boxes.
Actually, the best screens are calibrated ones and the best printers as well - so it's not the different colors, it's only the different luminance characteristics. And you can do a lot with good lighting for prints. If you watch your pictures on a calibrated wide gamut screen, you'll always get disappointed until you see your prints on a well-lit wall.
The experience of holding a print in your hands is very different to seeing it on a monitor.
For example, an A3 Hahnemule William Turner 310 gsm print may not be as sharp as it is on a monitor but when you hold it and feel the texture you will be amazed.
