I had a quick question, and I don't know if anyone else has experienced this. I generated a profile using the latest version of PP. The profile was not bad, but saturation was a bit high, and reds were very slightly orange. The issues are easily fixable in the profile editor. I noticed that when the editor is used, the prints are closer to the original image but the soft proof gets changed and is no longer useable.

I thought the point of the profile editor was to make the profile more accurate?

Without edits, the soft proof is more accurate (except less saturated than the actual print, with reds a tiny bit off).

Now this is not huge deal to me.. I was just curious. I have a Colormunki I use for most profiles now, but I like PP when I want to try new papers quickly, or profile smaller sized papers like 4x6.

Thanks Mike, yes I think I may have been editing out of gamut colors.

I was using this image here http://www.smugmug.com/img/help/calibration-print-1400-2.jpg. The only issue I saw really with the PP profile was that the car was not a perfect red on the print.. it seemed a bit orange/oversaturated. The man's skin tone was a tiny bit off as well, not by much. Everything else I can't complain. brightness, colors, grayscale were all very good. Profiles done with the Munki are spot on (on the softproof), but I like I said there are situations where Profile Prism is good to have. 4x6 or 5x7 papers come to mind. Love it for my scanner too ! 

I was able to correct the print by adding adding two clicks of yellow in the Profile Tweak Wizard. The resulting print of my edit using Profile B perfectly matched the soft proof of Profile A. That's what led me to think something may have been missing from the profile editor. My edits did change the soft proof but in a very bad way.

I may have simply been seeing a difference between how PP and the x-rite software deals with out of gamut colors. I may have not seen these issues with normal, real-life images.

My monitor is calibrated using Argyll. 110 cd/m, gamma 2.2, at native white point (6400K in the case of this monitor, didn't think it was worth changing the WP via the profile). I ran argyll with about 2400 patches, the profile should be pretty decent

I typically don't completely rely on soft proofing, I just use it to get an idea as to which rendering intent will give a better result with a specific image. I've always had far better results with Perceptual when using PP.