I completely agree that a wet fibre paper B&W print is something to behold and beats the pants off inkjet. I don't agree that a colour inkjet print is always better than a wet colour print. They are often just different, depending on the original negative. For example, if you have a shot taken with Ektar on a sunny day and you want to produce a print with a very high colour saturation, then an inkjet may be the best choice. On the other hand the wet print will result in a much more life-like and 'smoother' image (I can't think of the right word to describe what I mean here...) with more detail, especially when printing large. I've printed a handful of photos on both my inkjet and with RA4 and the results can be surprisingly similar and surprisingly different depending on the negative.
I have an inkjet print in the loft of a sunny day in Burano, featuring the incredibly colourful houses (lots of yellow, red and purple). It's a striking photo, but it looks a touch surreal with the very high saturation. I created the same image for a friend as a wet print and it's very different. Much less saturation and side by side it looked a bit disappointing. But taken on it's own, it looks great, is a lot more natural and certainly has a little more 3D depth. A few frames along on the wall I've got a big RA4 print of a bright blue aircraft. This print looks very saturated, which suggests that Fuji Crystal Archive (or maybe RA4 itself?) has a great blue response. As a test I created an inkjet print of part of this image (to scale), and side by side they look almost identical. The inkjet had a touch more saturation, but it wasn't obvious until I put them side by side. The huge expanse of blue highlighted two advantages of RA4 printing: (1) the wet print is completely smooth, whereas the inkjet had a tiny bit of banding, and (2) after printing an A3 sheet in a single colour, the cyan ink was almost gone and my colour cartridge (with two other half full tanks!) was ready for the bin.
