Another way of approaching the panoramic view is to divide an existing format in half along the other (long) dimension. In the case of 8X10 this would create a 5X8 negative. This aspect ratio is more nearly that of the "Golden Mean" (1.61 to 1).
This has been done with a couple of film formats that we have today. For instance the 12X20 format is 20X24 divided and 7X11 format is 11X14 divided. Both of these formats are also very near the "Golden Mean" aspect ratio.
On the other hand the 8X20 format is 16X20 divided on the short dimension. To me the 16X20 if divided along the long dimension to provide a 10X16 print is more pleasing. The latter division would also provide a "Golden Mean" aspect ratio.
This gives a very nice aspect ratio that affords some of the panoramic appearance and is still not overly elongated. I think that this would be a print that could be framed and presented without enlarging.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder I guess. I do not find the 7x11, 5x8, or even 12x20 formats to be more pleasing than any other. The golden mean is an interesting phenomenon. There are lots of them out there.
The "panoramic view"(long and skinny) fits the way I see. For me it takes the scene apart and frames the world in the same way my glasses frames do.
Aggie. The 7x17 camera is well out of my league price wise. The reinvestment in lenses to cover would be just too much. Someday I will have one. Right now I almost have the plans for a 5x12 and dedicated 4x10 drawn up. Since I already have a lens that will cover these formats they are much more doable. I think making the camera and film holders will be fun. This will be the first summer where I have no camera to work on. SO I might as well start another several year project, right.
Technological society has succeeded in multiplying the opportunities for pleasure, but it has great difficulty in generating joy. Pope Paul VI
So, I think the "greats" were true to their visions, once their visions no longer sucked. Ralph Barker 12/2004