Right, here is the comparison between a basic oiled paper print and a more expensive inkjet transparency:
Oiled on the left, transparency on the right, exposure time for paper was around 10 minutes, transparency was around 1 minute:
Oiled paper printed ok, but you can see some loss of sharpness in some parts due to the oil not evenly soaking in and some contamination (spots) at the top. What is also obvious is the lack of detail in the sky, the negative image would have had this quite dark and this might have basically blocked all of the UV out as there is also the layer of paper.
This is the transparency, it is sharp across the image and you can see definition such as the thin lamp posts and sharp edges on the bridge structure, you will also notice the sky is actually there this time - this is the same image just printed on an inkjet transparency and printed using a very cheap old printer! The print is slightly over exposed, this would be due to the much much shorter exposure time due to it not having a paper layer to have to go through, its quite a bit more expsensive to print like this with the transparency being the main cost of the whole print, but at least the negative can be used over and over again without issue. In general the overall toning is much better with the buildings being rendered in shades of blue rather than white, again the transparency image is overexposed, however it shows the difference.