It really comes down to a few things: 1) client type, 2) output format, and 3) expectations. I exclusively shoot product work and for clients from mom-n-pop shops to high end bespoke jewelers. For the first thing, higher-end clients expect higher-end shots. No way around that. For some clients, there's a huge no-no in an image that doesn't reflect the product accurately 100%.
The second is the expected output format. If you are just doing web/screen work, a few imperfections might not appear or get noticed. However, if they're going to print posters/billboards, every little thing will show up. That leads to the last of expectations. Even high end clients may not notice a spec of dust on an image that's 200x200. You also get the opposite end where they're printing rack signs and every little spec sticks out like a rock. It's important to know what that output is expected, both for deliveries and effort. If you can see the dust at 950px, you'll want to find out if their site will allow the image to be magnified to that or just go ahead and edit it all out.
I tend to do my own editing, but behind most good studio shooters are really good editors. It's typically more about getting the lighting and layout perfect to get smooth gradations and exacting highlights before the editing even happens. You can configure your lighting to hide or blend dust (or accentuate it!). I have a hundred little paintbrushes to dust objects, and have spent hours doing layout and dusting before the first shot even is fired. One of my tabletop set ups has a small laminar flow configuration on the sides that I built using PVC pipe with slits and a inline fan to pump a constant small layer of air over the whole shooting table. It helps with keeping dust down, especially on gloss black background shots (glass). Even then, it's still quite a bit of time editing out dust that lands on the product above the flow layer.
There's a huge difference with shooting and editing for a pristine image vs over-editing that looks fake. Proper lighting, editing, and output won't ever look AI-generated but can still be free of defects. My clients trust me to provide what I feel is the best image and with that I won't accept a single spec of dust! With that, the blur tool is the absolute wrong tool to use - it is changing the accuracy of the product and gives that plasticky "AI" look. The only tool I'd use is the clone/stamp zoomed way in and/or masking layers. One shot may be 4-5 hours of setup/lighting, 5 minutes to shoot it, and another 4-5 hours of editing for output!
You can say that for the price, there's "good enough", but I prefer to look at it as no matter what price, free or $1M, it's my work that is shown and I don't want anybody to think that it's the best I can do!
