Since you're shooting 4x5, ask the lab if they can make a contact print of the negatives. If you don't want to do that, get a good flatbed scanner, scan the film and make proofs for yourself to look at.
The lab I use for contact printing will even dodge / burn the contact sheets to try and even out the exposures.
For final prints, you can have them enlarged through the traditional analog print process, scanned and then printed with a LightJet or with an inkjet printer.
If you want traditional wet darkroom processes, finding a truly competent color printer is getting tougher. The best in the business where I live just quit and closed up shop.
If you want to try things digitally, Frontier prints are okay for proofing, but, the best output I've seen by a good lab is still a wretchedly inferior product for a final print to either a traditional enlarged print or a LightJet print.
A scanned image printed with a LightJet (done correctly) looks very close to a traditional print as long as the image does not require a lot of handwork (dodging / burning). No matter what is said about digital lightroom adjustments to individual areas, they aren't as smooth looking as a highly skilled darkroom technician with the same image.
The final look with a digital print will depend upon your skill with Photoshop. I've seen horrid prints from a LightJet all due to the gross, heavy-handed manipulations done to the image in software. That's not a knock on digital process, but on the skill of the person working the digital image - and more importantly, their standards of what is acceptable and constitutes a "good image."
Many knocks against digital are really about bad technical processes. Bad scanning, bad image handling. It's just that some folks, in their zeal to "prove" that digital is inferior lump everything bad they've ever seen into a single category. Contrary to that point of view, I've seen really sucky traditional prints and truly fine digital prints.
But, I also have enough experience, and honesty to tell you that I've seen a lot of bad digital prints due to technical issues, while the amount of analog bad prints are in the minority if done by the photographer or through a truly first rate pro lab with a custom print department run properly.
Conversely, if you want to make large images (bigger than 20x24), a well scanned (Imacon scanner minimum, drum scanner optimum) looks better than the same print made in a wet darkroom because of the inherent optical degredation that comes into play at large sizes. When making large prints, you have the dual problems of running the lens nearly wide open plus long exposures and the heat from the enlarger head which sometimes can cause the film to "pop" (buckle / warp) in the film holder.
For all of those ready to wave Christopher Burkett in my face, he shoots with an 8x10 - we're discussing 4x5.
For digital prints, all scans are not created equally - even with drum scans. The scanner operator, especially with negative films, really has to understand the film type and how to set the scanner black point and a number of other controls to get the best quality scan. There are LOTS of bad drum scans being made and sold at premium prices that result in bad digital prints.
If you're in the United States, it's hard to go wrong with West Coast Imaging or Calypso Imaging. There are also some other good players in regional areas.
As for inkjet printing, that's an issue that causes much distress on this web site so, I'll forge right ahead and give you my opinions. An inkjet print does not look like a print done on traditional color photographic papers. If that's the look you're going for, stay away from inkjet printing.
If however, you are open minded enough to admit that personal creative control of your images can include rendering them through an ink printing process, and you're interested in papers with other than a standard photo look - then inkjet printing has some unique attributes that can be exploited.
If you're familiar with inkjet printing, you'll know everything I'm going to say next. If not, then read further.
There are different levels of printing. Printing on small Epson or HP printers does not equal the output from professional level printing equipment. I own an Epson 1280 and an Epson 9600 - the output with the same image printed at the same size is close, but the 9600 makes a better print. This includes the fact that the 1280 is using a pigment ink, and the paper / ink combination has been profiled.
Professional level printing requires total control and profiling of the entire system, including the papers being used. If you don't do that you get inferior work and it shows. Inkjet printing has a smaller tonal reproduction range than traditional color paper because it cannot make blacks as dark as color photo paper, and depending upon the ink/paper combination, the total gamut is usually smaller.
Printing on glossy paper or even semi-glossy paper with pigment inks is an exercise in futility as gloss differential ruins the image look in my opinion. The HP printers with dye inks on glossy paper look quite good. But, if that's the look I was after, I'd use traditional processes or high quality LightJet work as they look even better.
But, if you want to print on matte paper you can create a certain "feel" to the image that is more closely aligned with fine art lithographic printing than with traditional photography. If you want to explore that type of image reproduction, then inkjet printing is an option that should be considered.
In the end, you need to decide your artistic intent and do what is best for the image.
