I am unfamiliar with this particular printer but as a generalisation it is very difficult and often impossible to get satisfying B&W from many, perhaps most, consumer or business level inkjet printers. The main reason is that most printers, even when set to print greyscale, still mix colours in order to obtain "black". Why don't they just use the black ink? Because unless it is printed using a dot screen, most general purpose black ink does not realistically produce a good range of greys. Colour laser printers often use just such a screen to print photographs.
Some modest six colour home photo printers can do reasonable B&W but the really good stuff comes from high-end models that have several black inks. It is also possible to buy completely different ink sets for some of these printers and these sets have only black/grey/brown inks. A lot of people who print top notch stuff on inkjets also drive the printer using software called RIP (raster image processor) which is like a highly refined printer driver that replaces the generic ones that come with printers and computers.
In the ten years I have been into digital, printing B&W has been one of the most frustrating aspects of my journey. I've only found satisfaction in two ways. One is using an expensive twelve colour Epson injet - the other is printing on good old chemically processed, cheap RA4 colour paper. I do not actually own the means to do either - I pay a lab to make the prints for me. RA4, in a carefully monitored environment, can produce very good B&W for many purposes and it is quite remarkable that it only uses three dyes, none of which are black, yet it can produce a very convincing solid black. In case some APUG tragic chimes in that I've overlooked the obvious because there are ways to print digital onto silver halide paper, I choose not to go down that convoluted path because if I want silver halide prints I'll shoot the pictures on film in the first place. OzJohn