This is a philosophical issue - but it's my opinion, from a Landscape Photographer's perspective only - that in order to produce a "Fine Landscape Print", the print must be able to hold up to 16x20 scrutiny
16x20 bares all and any imperfections. With the awesome advances in the Digital Photo world - we're seeing people able to take thousands of pictures, lots with the snappy cameras, and getting a few that look very good on the internet
For years and years I worked only with 4x5 B&W. Out of thousands of images taken - I have a portfolio of maybe 50 B&W prints - all the rest have been destroyed due to imperfections.
Now with a host of 12-14Megapixel DLSRs - I have maybe 100 color images, after some Lightroom and Photoshop work, look OK - but haven't yet tried 16x20 -(I know - don't write about it until you try it)
Of course not all photographs should be 16x20 - but for me a photo has to pass the 16x20 test before I bother to print it, whether it ends up 8x10, 11x14 or Hasselbald square. And I know E Weston produced mostly 8x10 contact prints.
For "straight" landscape work, Frames per second, ability to push a photo to higher ASA, etc. are just not important
For Large Format B&W it was such as easy process, Schneider 210, Basic Monorail camera, Zone system, HC110, Dodging and burning and maybe some development variations such as Selectol Soft instead of Dektol, then maybe Selenium toning
There's a question in all this. Can anyone recommend "foolproof" 7-10 step process that will produce a truly Fine Color Print - and what equipment is truly needed?
A. Adams beautifully outlined this in his short books - esp The Negative and The Print. Adamsí process will work - as long as film and chemicals last - forever. I'd love to see the true handful of Masters of Landscapes reveal their own secrets !!! www.chaykaphotography.com