ICC profiles for Epson 3800 and Inkrepublic inks?

[astecno]

I compared everything as per your suggestion and I found Nec pa271w much better that I tought initially.

It also shows that printer gamut exceeds both AdobeRGB and Nec gamut in some areas. Curiously not exaclty in the areas I noticed expressive differences when printing ("magentas came oversaturated and blues a bit pale").

1. Nec pa271w (flat surface) vs AdobeRGB (wireframe): it shows that Nec claim of 97.1% coverage is very realistic.



2. Nec pa271w (wireframe) vs AdobeRGB (flat surface): this time we can see Nec exceeding AdobeRGB significantly. So it seems that Nec pa271w offers more than it claims in terms of gamut.



3. AdobeRGB (wireframe) vs Inkrepublic Epson Premium Glossy (flat surface): despite AdobeRGB big volume, printer gamut is wider in some areas.



4. Nec ICC Profile (wireframe) vs Inkrepublic Epson Premium Glossy (flat surface): same here.

Let me just show you an example - how gamuts can match - or not , and overlap
I'm displaying here the AdobeRGB gamut and the gamut of an icm-printer profile - a L800 with 6 dye inks on a glossy paper - the gamut volume is significantly smaller than the Adobe RGB gamut but the printer gamut nevertheless exceeds the AdobeRBG color space in one area, and exactly such a mismatch can occur as well between the printer and your monitor claiming 97% of AdobeRGB
View attachment 4176
Softproofing is a very valuable process nevertheless but you just should be aware of the limitations
here and there

 

[Ink stained Fingers]

you got quite some interesting details together for your monitor and printer. So don't stick too much to this number of 97%, you don't even know what they compared - the 3D gamut volume or the 2D projection of the gamut or the area of a cut through the gamut volume at a particular lightness - typically 50%.
It's the image at the end, the presentation, the composition, the story, the emotions which it conveys when looking to it. And if you made the photo you have prior knowledge when looking to the print - you are biased in a sense, other people without that information may view a printed image quite differently - you think it's too green, too dark etc and somebody else just thinks it should be like that . And there are other things to consider - e.g. the contrast range - a tpyical photo can easily have a contrast range of 6 - 8 f-stops , a range you never can print like that - just go along the L-axis from 100% to 50% to 25% to 12% to 6% which is a very good black level already, and that's just a range of 4 f-stops, so there is a heavy contrast compression going on changing the look of an image, and that's nothing you can blame on a icm-profile if something doesn't look as expected.