I would really appreciate it if someone would explain why one would want to use OBA compensation as I find the whole subject very confusing.
Robert
The measurement instrument, I use I1 Pro2, measures the OBA effect and shows the results, f.i. a grey wedge, with a blue bias depending the amount of OBA. But if one observes the same grey wedge it does not appear so blue as the measurements indicate. This however varies with the sort of lighting/illuminant used.
According to the ISO3664:2009 standard , if you use a illuminant in a light booth that complies with the standard regarding UV light, using the M1 condition during profile creation should result in a correlation between measured and observed wrt the OBA effects.
The M0 condition does also measure OBA effect but so-called undefined, in effect the OBA effect measured is less pronounced than in condition M1.
Even M2, UV-cut, only means that in the measurement the OBA effect is eliminated, but it is not eliminated for the observer.
But in a different illuminant, say a normal household halogen, or a LED light, or a fluorescence energy saving or a mixture of those with daylight without direct sunlight, or direct sunlight, or through a thick window-pane, etc, the OBA effect varies. Unlike non OBA papers, the spectral behavior of the reflection changes, that is what makes it a moving target.
So ideally if there is only one light condition used for observing, with a known behavior (f.i. compliant with ISO3664:2009 standard), one can create a matching (sort of) profile.
Great for the graphic industry, but what about the individual observer? Then just M0, M1, M2 does not work out of the box, you have to have some way of applying a compensation though trial and error to come to an acceptable result.