I expect we will see more and more complaints about softproofs not representing the actual output. From comments that the normal display is a better representation of the print than the softproof offers, to complaints that the prints are duller than the softproof (with one exception: I doubt that prints can be duller than Qimage's softproof :-).
Reasons are the wider spread of LCD monitor's (many running at higher light levels than we had on the CRTs), the appearance of wider gamut monitors (even affordable 22" models like the Samsung 226 CW, not one to recommend BTW), the N-channel printers with other/wider gamuts and the profiles delivered with them, the widening gap between gloss print gamut and matt print gamut.
Getting used to the new products is one thing, in the past it wasn't easy either to get things synchronised. If the monitor calibration/profiling is hard enough rock to build on there are some issues left. The "RGB" printer profiling should be good coming from the printer manufacturer for the manufacturer's paper, at least for the print itself and we can judge that with our eyes, metamerism is also less an issue than it was before. Whether the generic softproof part of the profiles still is suitable for every desktop, gloss and matt papers, N-color printer gamuts is something I'm not so sure about. I also wonder whether third party profiling software is up to date on that aspect and to extend that I wonder whether their "RGB" printer device profile creation copes with the increased gamuts of printers in general and the specific hues of the N-color models. I bet not all that we trusted in the past and/or didn't upgrade performs optimal on the new tasks.
Starting from the best monitor + monitor calibration/profiling you can afford, "RGB" profiles you trust based on the print output and not satisfied with the softproof you actually need a profile editor that allows editing on the softproof side of the profile.
Not all editors have that feature while it actually is becoming a necessity with the changed and varied conditions sketched above. Even a small plug-in for Photoshop that only allowed softproof editing on a printer profile would be a good tool to adapt the printer profile to individual desktop conditions. Kodak Colorflow tools that I have has far more features and is an expensive but very good editor.
There are probably tricks possible with the monitor profile(s) to get there cheap but it isn't the right path and an inconvenient one too. I'm not sure whether new generic softproof methods will solve this in the future, I have some doubts as development in printing and monitors continues. There are of course risks that softproof editing by the user will be used to compensate flaws in the rest of his color management. If you leave "You press the button, we do the rest" territory you need some skills.
Ernst Dinkla
try:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/