Digital BW, The Print

Hi,
I posted the procedure recently posted to this group a couple of hours ago.  I 
had not personally used the procedure but there seemed to be interest  in it, 
so I described the method.  Since then, I have made several B@W prints and 
would like to share my observations.  

I  was hopeful but my experience demonstrates this is not the perfect solution.  
I use several printers and tried this on my 2200 using OEM cartridges with the 
matte black.  Here is what I have (unscientifically) found.  The metamerism is 
most definitely still there.  Under tungsten lighting you can see it clearly see a 
majenta cast although it isn't pronounced.  But it's there.  Under daylight 
florescent daylight lighting the slight majenta tone disappears and the print is 
fully acceptable with no blocking of highlights and good shadow separation.  
Tonal range is, to my eye excellent.  In conclusion, if you display under 
daylight lighting, you'll find this method very acceptable.  Unfortunately that 
isn't the case with most of us who display under various lighting conditions.  

Finally, my usual printing of B@W is using the 1280 and MIS Ultra-Tone Hex 
inks which I have found does not my prints to suffer from metamerism (of 
course) and produces very pleasing prints.  This causes me to decidedly 
agree with those persons who argue that one must have more than one 
printer and dedicate one for B@W only.  This IS expensive.  But, what if 
Michaelangelo, De Vinci, or Van Gough had worried about the expense of 
their mediums?  Friends, the piper must have his pay.

Many thanks for all the unselfish effort put forth to help each other.  I think this 
is a great forum and the occasional lapses in good manners I just ignor.  

Joe D.

I assume al this procedure involves the matte black cartridge, not the so-called photo 
black one. Is that right, or it is mostly indifferent?
Thank you
J