Digital BW, The Print

You will have to be very lucky indeed to get exactly what you are looking for with a straight,only carbon,ink set as things stand today.
With a fixed set the only option for change is in trying different papers until you find one you like the image color on.Like it or not you will probably find compromise a necessity.

As regards the metamerism issue,none of the various carbon mix B&W inks(including those with color pigment content) that I have used for several years now have been a problem. Minimizing the use of color in them seems to obviate the trouble.Longevity without change is the main issue with color content but what you are currently using might not do better and is possibly much worse on that score.

The advice to check samples is well considered.
Regards
Duane

  

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Dave <cowcreekroad@...> wrote:
>
> The idea of an all-carbon approach appeals to me. The most appealing  
> aspect of it is the lack of illuminant metameric failure. From what  
> I've read here, the color of all-carbon ink doesn't change with the  
> light. If I can find an all-carbon inkset that fits within the color  
> range I'm looking for, I'll go for it. I also like the idea of being  
> able to achieve more control over the tonal range in my prints, using  
> QTR.
> 
> All I need now is a recommendation for an all-carbon inkset that will  
> fit within my chosen color range without the addition of color  
> pigments. That's why I posted my settings - I'm hoping someone on the  
> list can say, "Yeah. I know what your trying to get. My prints with  
> (insert inkset) would give you that kind of color."
> 
> 
> On Feb 3, 2010, at 1:40 PM, David Kachel wrote:
> 
> >
> > On Feb 3, 2010, at 2:31 PM, dlruckus wrote:
> >
> > > There are various ways to get whatever colors you are looking for.
> >
> > Using only pigments? Otherwise, might as well stick with OEM inks.
> >
> > David Kachel
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>