Frank, I think this is a good question. Possibly off topic for this thread. Maybe as a new post we could generate a discussion on this topic. This forum is populated by folks who take printing very seriously and take it to what many of us would consider extremes. I get the sneaking feeling that they sort of enjoy the minutiae and technological nuances of the process. That is not said as a criticism but for many of us that level of file massaging and control is 1) outside of our price range regarding hardware and software, 2) outside of our comfort zone....in other words, takes the fun out of the process and 3) might not ever yield the sort of subtle nuances of tone and sharpness that are important to or even visible to us.
So yes, it would be interesting to look at and compare two or three levels of workflow that vary by expense and experience. This would need to include an open and honest assessment of results. This can be difficult because 1) we really can't critique prints that we can't see on line, 2) those of us who are not experts may not have eyes and brains trained to see the subtle nuances so desired by the high end/high tech printer (people) here and 3) those who have invested high levels of time, expense and expertise might not be willing (subconsciously) to concede the qualities of say, a lower level workflow print...speculation here, but certainly a plausible hurdle.
Having said that, as one who appreciates fine art B&W prints, even if I might not be able to make them, I would not want it to be assumed that because I cannot make a 44" fine aft B&W print that I do not know what I'm looking at or how to properly appreciate it.
