Why do images look different on different papers?

[digitaldog]

With really "good" profiles I would most likely also think about enableing "paper white simulation" as a reference for my monitor calibration.

I only use really good profiles.
OBA's are a huge PITA. I just did a project with a paper who's bStar was -7! I had both UV cut and UV included data. For reasons I can't go into, I used UV cut due to the huge bStar value and all images expect the Roman 16 high key neutral image looked spot on. That one image under Fluorescent was real cool. Using UV included didn't help much either, time to start with the X-rite OBA visual compensation. This wasn't even a soft proofing issue, as yet, the output with that excessive OBA content was affecting mostly mid and high key neutrals.

Anytime excessive OBA's come onto the scene, trouble and extra futzing around is required.

[tho_mas]

I only use really good profiles.

this is what I have expected... otherwise you would go nuts with your approach :-)

OBA's are a huge PITA (...) Anytime excessive OBA's come onto the scene, trouble and extra futzing around is required.

indeed.
The issue is also that the "blue" white and the "blue" black (without UV-cut) lead to a wrong representation of the luminance-levels (contrast ratio). "Blue" is darker than white and a blueish "black" is actually too bright. UV-cut on the other hand takes away the "energy" of the optical brightener. So one way or another fine-tuning (manual/visual adjustment) is required.
I am glad I don't have to create printer profiles :-)

[EricV]

Using the paper profile as much as possible would take most of the burden off the display calibration which wouldn't be as visible if you're doing work without considering the final output (soft proof) while doing most of the editing. In that mode, the display is more output agnostic and with the soft proof on, it's more output specific.

That makes sense.  Philosophically, I like the idea of device independence in the monitor calibration, with dependence on the particular printer/paper combination taken care of by the soft proof mechanism.  But apparently you do not find this sufficiently accurate?

[tho_mas]

That makes sense.  Philosophically, I like the idea of device independence in the monitor calibration, with dependence on the particular printer/paper combination taken care of by the soft proof mechanism.  But apparently you do not find this sufficiently accurate?

The problem with paper white simulation when softproofing is that all palettes or tools or ANYTHING on your monitor that is pure white will seriously affect your perception of the softproof (the softproof will always look "colored" if there is anything "whiter than white" on your screen). This alone is reason enough to adjust your display to visually match paper white (either way which approach you are choosing to start with).
The basic concept is really striking: adjust your monitor to look exactly as your paper ... and there will be nothing that is irritating or distracting.
Once you are there the only remaining issue is the adaption to the blackpoint. When you are working with a paper with a very low contrast you won't turn down the luminance too much (doesn't make sense anyway)... you have to lift the blackpoint. And it takes some time and also some test-printing to get used to a "black" that you initially would at best accept as a "grey".
What Andrew is talking about is a perfect match of monitor and print. And if this is what you are really aiming at you have to tweak your monitor for each paper individually. There is no better way. And it requires some work and effort.
But if you can accept small (sometimes maybe only minute) differences... than you can just as well work with an "averaged" monitor calibration: Adjust your monitor to match a "reference" paper (coated paper used in quaility catalogues for example... or simply your favorite photo-paper) and "estimate" how much "warmer" or "cooler" a certain other paper is. If you do so softproofing without "paper white simulation" (but with "black ink" simulation) is the easier (more fail-safe) way in any case.

[digitaldog]

Philosophically, I like the idea of device independence in the monitor calibration, with dependence on the particular printer/paper combination taken care of by the soft proof mechanism.  But apparently you do not find this sufficiently accurate?

Again, one size doesn't fit all. With SpectraView, I can have as many as I want. I can build a general calibration that is output agnostic using the widest gamut and sufficiently bright for editing in an RGB working space, or I can emulate sRGB or setup a calibration for Luster paper going out to my Epson. That's the beauty of the system. Without this capability, you pick one target and you have to live with it. If the the soft proof doesn't match the print sufficiently, you either have to alter the calibration so it does (potentially at the cost of other uses) or live with a soft proof mismatch.

[digitaldog]

The problem with paper white simulation when softproofing is that all palettes or tools or ANYTHING on your monitor that is pure white will seriously affect your perception of the softproof (the softproof will always look "colored" if there is anything "whiter than white" on your screen).

Yes, I wish Adobe would fix that so we don't have to work in Full Screen mode. And better would be a gradual application of the soft proof like we see in Lightroom.
What I do now is have my mouse over the Customized Proof Setup I desire, turn my head so I'm not viewing the display and click the button. By the time I turn back, the soft proof looks OK. It's that alarming change going from no paper white to paper white that caused Jeff Schewe to nickname this the "Make my image look like crap button"
As for as full screen mode, the only time I'm really seriously looking this way is when I want to view print then display so I'm not editing. But it would be great if Adobe would work on making it so we could edit and see the soft proof without the white of the UI being an issue. To their defense, while they could probably alter the white of the palettes and such, there's the menu bar of the OS they have no control over. 

[tho_mas]

Yes, I wish Adobe would fix that so we don't have to work in Full Screen mode (...) it would be great if Adobe would work on making it so we could edit and see the soft proof without the white of the UI being an issue.

Now, that would be a really, really great and useful feature!! Count me in for Adobe's next survey :-)

What I do now is have my mouse over the Customized Proof Setup I desire, turn my head so I'm not viewing the display and click the button. By the time I turn back, the soft proof looks OK. It's that alarming change going from no paper white to paper white that caused Jeff Schewe to nickname this the "Make my image look like crap button"

:-)) haven't heard that one...
Sometimes humans and technique seem to be a bad match. If you consider it takes us humans around 15 minutes (in average) to really adapt to a different white point it is at least not a stretch to state that color management is still in its infancy (well... at least when using color managment sometimes it may seem so ... see your example of turning your head away so that you don't have to see the switch in white points. Funny image: there's an imaging-professional sitting in front of his perfectly tuned high-end equipment ... and trying to fool himself just to get the work done properly :-)) ... ).