It's a plan worth exploring, for sure. There is no tried and true, one size fits all approach to sharpening and noise removal, which is the principal reason I haven't shot jpeg since 2006. I don't care for the ham-handed way the camera approaches noise, sharpening and contrast.

I almost always do a little sharpening, and I look at detail, diameter, and when there are extensive areas of detail-less areas, masking. Holding down the alt key while manipulating the masking slider in the sharpening dialog will initially show you a white image - which indicates that the entire image is being sharpened. As you move the slider to the right, you start to get more black. What is left in white are edges and transitions - and those are elements you definitely want to sharpen. Done this way in Lightroom you can minimize the oversharpening halos. I address color and tonal noise in LR as well.

When I move an image into Photoshop I have had great success doing a two-stage sharpen with unsharp mask. First stage is a huge radius - as much as 170 pixels or more (or less), and a relatively small amount, like 15% to 30%.This sets up the microcontrast to my liking. Then I do a conventional sharpen with a small radius - between .5 and 1 pixel, and as high as 400% (or more/less).

Presumed isn't much different than assumed. I have never been anywhere that most people don't stick their noses to the image unless there is a barrier to keep them away. A few weeks ago I went to an exhibit at the Peninsula Gallery in Lewes. I got their early as I knew one of the exhibitors and her grandmother (a good friend) kind of insisted. I got to take a nice look at everything displayed as you suggest. I had already seen them on my computer.

Once people started coming in nobody stood far enough back that they could see the entirety of the images without actually turning their heads. I thought, if only Gene were here he might give these folks a lesson.

--