I think about this a little differently - but then again I've never used masks.
Here's a brief summary of my working "methodology":

There are three kinds of contrast: Microcontrast, mesocontrast and macrocontrast.

Microcontrast is mostly controlled by development of the negative, and to a lesser extent by the paper/printing contrast.

Macrocontrast is the overall contrast in the image, I try to control this by burning in overbright areas (I frequently burn in everything but one tiny area, I suppose I might as well think of it as dodging...).

Mesocontrast is the interesting one. To me, that's where the print "lives" - or dies as the case might be. By "mesocontrast" I mean contrast over areas too small to be controlled by burning, and too large to be influenced by film development.

To control the mesocontrast I change the paper grade, paper developer, developing times etcetera. I suppose that masking will be the most precise way to do this, but as I said I haven't tried this yet.

I see no difference between portrait and landscape; the only difference to me is that I use different "objects" to show the light. And the way I work is to always try to depict the light as well as possible. That's why I consentrate on the mesocontrast, since that to me is where the light is.