I think that it can all be done by 8x10, architecture, landscape, whatever. BUT, at what cost and effort?
8x10 enlargers do come along on EBay. For example, the Beseler conversion pops up every once and a while. Even a Durst 8x10 can sometimes be found. And of course, there's always the possibility of scanning.
One can get the super-wides for 8x10 architecture, but they cost a ton, and they weigh a ton. For me (all be it at retirement age), "hiking a few miles tops from the vehicle" and 8x10 don't belong in the same sentence.
For those who remember, Chris Jordon in Seattle is a great example of someone who walked this very same path. He wanted large prints and fine detail. He tried 8x10 and ended up selling all his equipment to the rest of us at very good prices in the FS forum. He went to stitching digital, and the rest is history.
But sticking to film, I'm thinking that 5x7 is a reasonable, pragmatic alternative. Both architecture and landscape can at times make use of an elongated format. 5x7 cameras aren't sails in the wind that 8x10 cameras can be. Many of the lenses that one might choose for 4x5 can also be used for 5x7. In a 5x7 format, even a Durst enlarger can be affordable. Don't Durst enlargers tip to become horizontal enlargers, when one needs to make very large prints?
I think that 5x7 would be my choice in the situation that the OP has described.
Bookmarks