I think that if the OP does not like the way type C prints look, he should print inkjets. But I have personally never had a problem with the way type C prints look, however, and neither does any photo gallery I know of that displays color work. They do, however, often have problems with inkjets. Even the OP said he didn't notice the fog until he compared it to a napkin or something. (I am paraphrasing from memory here; sorry if I got it wrong.) In that case, the old cliche should be applied: If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Also, "digital print" and "inkjet print" are not synonymous, though they are often being used as such in this thread. (I would actually argue that there is no such thing as a "digital print," only a "print from digital," but I see no purpose in getting deep into that here.) Digital files may be printed a number of ways (inkjet, type C, type R, offset litho, screen print via printed-out transparency, alt process via inkjet negative, etc.), just as frames of film may be printed in various different ways (silver-gelatin, type C, type R, screen, offset litho, alt process, etc). The source of the image (film frame or digital file) is separate from printing processes, for the most part. I.e. You cannot tell whether the image was shot on film or digital simply by looking at what type of print it is on a gallery tag. I could label a print shot with my Nikon digital camera as a type R print if I had printed it via Lambda/Lightjet to Ilfochrome material. And I could label a print shot with my Nikon F an inkjet print if I scanned the film and made the print with an Epson.

The use of the phrase "digital print" to mean "inkjet print" can lead to a lot of ignorance and/or misunderstanding if it is read by people who are beginners in the craft.