Softproofing in Photoshop: Use Simulate Paper or Not?

Good discussion here about whether it's better to select Simulate Paper or not, when softproofing in Photoshop. Some are saying, leave Simulate Paper unchecked when printing to gloss or luster paper, select it when printing on matte type paper. Some say always select Simulate Paper. What's your take?

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/in​dex.php?topic=47185.0

I never use it because it has no proper control. As far as I know an ICC profile doesn't contain details of the paper's hue or reflective nature so it's basically pointless.

HankScorpio wrote in post #11039835
I never use it because it has no proper control. As far as I know an ICC profile doesn't contain details of the paper's hue or reflective nature so it's basically pointless.

But it has information on the color of white, which IS the paper color.

I usually try both.
Print matches the softproof with "simulate paper white" best, but if you aren't comparing to the screen, the print gives the impression of the one without, if you know what I mean.

When comparing to the screen, I only compare to the softproofed image in full screen view, no menus or pallets visible. Personally I only use 3 papers, HP Premium Plus gloss and semi-gloss, and Ilford Galerie Classic Pearl. I find that using Simulate Paper Color gives me the best results with these papers. If I was using a heavier matte type paper, I'd try with AND without Simulate Paper.

I don't tend to use it. I find softproofing a rather inexact tool anyway and find my eyes compensate for a cream coloured paper so don't bother. It would be nice to be able to fine tune the softproof based on results because once dry, my prints tend to appear about halfway between the straight monitor display and the softproof version.

ChasP505 wrote in post #11040602
But it has information on the color of white, which IS the paper color.

It's the colour measured by the profiler which isn't the same thing as the hue and reflective characteristic of the paper. In any case it's about as accurate as a blind darts player.

HankScorpio wrote in post #11045527
It's the colour measured by the profiler which isn't the same thing as the hue and reflective characteristic of the paper. In any case it's about as accurate as a blind darts player.

So what you're saying is, there's no value in ever using Simulate Paper Color and those Adobe Engineers are just wasting our time with this function?

ChasP505 wrote in post #11045602
So what you're saying is, there's no value in ever using Simulate Paper Color and those Adobe Engineers are just wasting our time with this function?

That's been my experience with it. I've never seen it be even close to helpful. We don't use it at work for that reason.

When I asked a few PJ friends this morning if they used it, most of them didn't even soft-proof at all and the ones that did, didn't do anything but look at it with a puzzled look on their face and not do anything to change out of gamut areas.

I'm sure it serves some purpose for someone or maybe did years ago. The problem with PS is that it's damn near impossible to remove functions because you always get somebody complaining that they "need" it. So it's full of pointless old things. I put this into that category but as always, YMMV.

In reality, I know my little closed system so well that I don't need to formally softproof, but can gauge by eye when an image needs a little adjustment curve before printing.

But why then do all these experts, whose books and videos we so quickly recommend to newbies, still teach this function?