I’ve been having fun creating profiles for the several papers I currently use with my Epson 1290. During the profiling process (at least, as it occurs when using PrintFix Pro) I was able to test out different media settings before printing the patch targets.
This in itself caused me to have conversations with several different people and receive differing opinions. Since the process of trying different media settings is configured to really test the printer’s gamut, I became aware of problems with the near blacks and the areas close to pure primaries (along with one or two other issues). I have to say that I’m not hugely dissatisfied with the profiling and what it does for the colour. It’s perfectly acceptable for ‘home use’ but since I became aware of the printer’s limitations, I’ve been trying to work out what can realistically be done assuming I don’t wish to spend an infinite amount of money.
It has been suggested (and denied) that it could be the fact that my printer has just a single black and five colours that it struggles to differentiate the darker tones (sorry about mixing terminology here), so maybe I should ditch the trusty 1290 and go buy a 2400. Then another experienced user suggested that wasn’t necessary. But now I’m wondering whether or not I’d be better off changing the Epson dye inks for the Pantone pigment inks they now sell for this model, and getting some top notch paper - recommendations welcome.
I’m also wondering how much of this is driven by my desire for a ‘technical’ level of performance that may not in fact be particularly noticeable in the ‘real world’ ie when reprinting photos from various sources.
So my questions are: Does anyone feel that pigment inks (apart from their improved lightfastness) would improve colour reproduction (printer gamut size)?
Is it a sensible or unecessary step to consider the extra outlay for a 2400 (subjective yes, but opinions welcome)?
Should I just leave it alone and accept that there are always limits?