Yes, I agree with you that different inks and printers have different metamerism qualities. I print with an Epson 1280 using MIS pigment inks and have no metamerism problems with that combination.
I also have an Epson 9600 with the Ultrachrome inkset. I tested 9 different matte papers with differing results ranging from no percievable metamerism to a slight bit of metamerism. The metamerism differences seem to be paper color related (different color reflectivity), but may also be related to dot gain characteristics and some ink mixing. I did not profile the papers for the tests because I wanted to see the "worst case" characteristics of the papers - knowing that profiling the paper would only improve the performance and end results.
My final choice of paper was Moab Entrada natural (300 gsm) with Crane Museo heavyweight a close second for producing the best image (no metamerism, best color reproduction, and shadow detail).
Black and white is a whole different issue. The Epson printer driver is absolutely incapable of producing a neutral print on the 9600 using the full inkset. The Colorbyte Imageprint RIP totally solves that problem - including the metamerism in a full inkset black and white print.
With the Ultrachrome inks, the metamerism shift is always green/magenta under different lighting. Green under daylight, magenta under tungsten light. The green shift is from poor control of the yellow ink and the magenta shift is poor control of both magenta inks. The Imageprint RIP corrects that in two ways. The first is better control of the inkjet heads, and the second is through a better dithering algorithm.
A side benefit to the IP RIP is it also nearly eliminates the gloss differential problem using pigment inks on a glossy surface because of the better ink control and dithering.
My observations and tests are specific to the Epson 9600. People who use the HP printers seem to report little to no metamerism. I can't comment on that any further as I've never used the HP wide format printers. However, the FLAAR folks really flog the HP as "the" answer to wide format printing and as being superior to the Epson products. Then again, HP gives them free printers to use for a long as they want them, and Epson just ignores their pleas for free products.
Using the inkjet printer and a combination of film and digital technologies is certainly a learning experience (part of the fun for me). It has also allowed me to realize certain goals that I could not achieve without the benefit of this type of technology.
One example: in 1992 I shot a 5 frame panorama of the confluence of the Yellowstone and Missouri rivers in northern North Dakota at sunset. I thought long and hard over the years as to just how to make the images into a true expression of what I saw and experienced. Nothing I tried was totally what I wanted. Earlier this year, I put the 5 frames together using a panoramic stitching program and now have an image that I print 36 inches wide by 10.5 inches in height.
I finish the image by ripping the paper down to final size to have 1.5 inch white borders with a deckle edge. The image is framed like a lithograph or etching by floating it on a 1/8-inch thick matte board (slightly smaller than the print) that is attached to the primary matte board giving 2-inch borders on the top and sides and a 2.5-inch bottom border around the deckle edge.
Floating the print leaves the deckle edges exposed and generates a small drop shadow around the print when it is displayed. The final finished and framed print is everything that I hoped to achieve with that image - and I could not have achieved it without the aid of digital technology.
I'm sure someone will read this, and post yet another tantrum about this being a digital "rant," and to get off APUG as the site is dedicated to analog... blah, blah, bubbba blah. Before you do that, let me say that all I'm trying to do is have a civil exchange of ideas about creativity and image making. I'm not promoting one method as being superior over another. For me, life/fun is about learning and creative image making -- NOT processes or equipment.
If your photography revolves around processes rather than images - fine - I just no longer relate to that state of mind as it is so restrictive to creativity. Use whatever method you want - just open your mind a little to other possibilities, and you may learn something that will help you realize the full potential within some future image.