The prints are all on a heavy watercolor paper by Hannemuhle, and yes, they look lovely. I think digital is amazing under controlled lighting (studio), and outside there, I almost never carry my digital cameras with me - always my Bronica or RZ.
These prints can go up to 30" with a good RIP and a top end Canon or Epson printer. Digital is not hindered technically in any way, I think it's more about the thought process of digital vs film; or, more specifically, 35mm vs. MF or LF. So don't sell the 8x10.
Inkjet printing can be astonishingly good, or it can be a giant PITA. You really need someone dedicated just to that art. We previously owned a large format Canon printer, and it ate up a tremendous amount of time at the studio to manage it. My most recent series have all been film and Diafine, and after scanning about 50 negs, spotting them and printing them, it occurred to me that I could have popped the neg into an enlarger and reached the same point in half the time!
Either film or digital, photography takes a lot of commitment and a lot of time. Film, processing, contact sheets, printing vs importing, editing, tweaking, spotting, retouching and printing.
I've seen your stuff with 777 and I think it's gorgeous. But I guess it would be lovely no matter how you had created it. As photographers, we tend to obsess over technical details that may or may not actually make a difference.