Re: What about UV?
Wow Gordon, you certainly have opened yourself a can of worms! I certainly don't know the answers, but I do have a few comments on this messy, messy subject.
The main reason I think this subject is so messy is that optical brighteners, UV content of light, and how different measuring devices respond to both is currently not quantified or standardized in any meaningful way. There is no standard terminology or grading system for paper that describes its response to UV, and there is also no standard for how much UV should be in say a D50 illuminant, or the illuminant that is inside a spectrophotometer. Then to complicate things further, different spectro's react differently to the brightening effect.
I have personal experience with the last statement, as we have both an i1Isis chart reader (which can provide both UV-cut and UV-in measurements) and and a UV-cut i1pro handheld, and I have occasional access to an i1pro that does NOT filter UV. When reading the LAB value of white of dozens of stocks that we have in house, I find that the UV-cut numbers between an Isis and I1pro match fairly well. But when UV is INCLUDED the Isis sees the paper with brighteners as bluer (lower b value) but no change in brightness (same L value) when compared to the UV-cut numbers. The I1 handhelds, on the other hand, see papers with brighteners as both bluer and brighter, and the b value tends to be roughly 2 points lower than the same paper on the Isis.
You asked: +Do you consider/compensate for the difference between UV content in proofing papers vs press papers?+
Because of all of the above, I find it is very difficult to do this in a meaningful way.
+Do you use a UV cut filter when making profiles?+
Many people will maintain that UV should NOT be filtered out, because it is a real effect and there is UV content in virtually all light, so removing UV will make your profile less accurate. However, such a profile will be based upon the amount of UV in your spectro's illuminant AND how your spectro reacts to the brighteners, so it is limited in that it doesn't necessarily characterize actual viewing conditions. A good retort to this is that however UV may be incorporated into the process, it will STILL be more like real-world conditions than cutting UV entirely. I tend to agree.
+What is the impact of UV/optical brightners on the proofing/color management process?+
I think the quote from Larry exaggerates the situation somewhat, but he is basically correct in that the unquantifiable nature of optical brighteners throw a monkey wrench into color management. The unbelievable truth is that you have to do WHAT WORKS BEST FOR YOU. Larry's suggestion of proofing on the production stock is the only way of removing the biggest variable in the equation: the amount and "kind" of optical brighteners used. If you can use the same stock for both, I would definitely Include UV when profiling. If you can't proof on the production stock, the sad truth is that you you should make UVin and UVcut profiles and see which one matches better in your viewing conditions.
I've heard several color management experts say that when it comes to including UV or cutting UV, it really comes down to personal choice. Whatever produces better results for you in your particular circumstances is what you should do. One rule you can definitely follow is that you shouldn't mix the two kinds of measurements and profiles: pick a route and stick with it.
-Todd Shirley