While I'm no expert, I would agree Paul's ink prints are very good.
I made several prints yesterday on Ilford Art 300 paper, and today I'll tone them in various toners, and see what the materials give me. Darkroom printing seems to me a bit more passive in this respect, compared to a digital workflow, or another way to put it might be, generous, depending on one's perspective. I'm not a great printer, able to wring a beautiful print from a junk negative, or to bend and contort my materials into delivering whatever my imagination dictates -- I try too keep things within range from the beginning so I can make an essentially straight darkroom print. If I get everything right, my prints are as good as the materials they're made with, so I try to chose the best materials I can find. This commits me to the processes and problems we most generally discuss here -- fitting the scene onto the film, and the film onto the paper, with all the little details and controversies along the way, but all of this is within the context of the materials.
So, the way I read the OP's question is: are inkjet materials as good as silver materials? This is a far simpler question than one about comparisons of prints, or workflows, though I don't pretend to have a definitive answer to it. I will say that the best prints I've ever personally seen are carbon prints, which might have more in common with inkjet prints than with silver prints, and I suspect that digital prints will inevitably eclipse all other varieties by any objective metric.
Bookmarks