I Googled and found this page about bleed. It says the following:
The fact that content needs to extend beyond the page boundaries is no excuse for sloppy design. Letting images extend beyond the needed bleed clutters the file, can lead to bloated PDF files and simply looks sloppy.
Point taken that you shouldn't just leave large graphics unkempt and extended beyond the trim marks willy-nilly because that does seem to clutter the file and be sloppy; and I'm not entirely sure if a desktop publishing program actually cuts off graphics at the edge of its container (for example, in Adobe InDesign, placed images are contained within a bounding box which defines the visibility extent of the images) and embeds only those cuts in the PDF instead of the whole original graphics, but if that's what it does, then bloated PDFs may be a concern.
That being said, is it really necessary to spend time extending graphics precisely to the bleed marks? Would it be that big a deal if I extend graphics beyond the bleed a tiny bit, like say five milimetres or so? Adobe apps like InDesign or Illustrator actually crop out whatever is beyond the bleed mark anyway on exporting to a PDF, so is it really worth the trouble to be too concerned about bleed when placing graphics? Or is it a problem for other programs upon exporting to PDFs?
Here's a screenshot of a PDF page exported from InDesign. The original page in InDesign actually has a magenta rectangle extending beyond the bleed mark, but it's not visible at all here. The cyan rectangle was precisely extended to the bleed mark, and the yellow rectangle to the trim mark.