Just buy it.  Qimage is the only program on my computer I'm enthusiastic about.  Jump in, the water's fine...and look at all the lifeguards here on the forum!

Appreciate it, Mike.  It does indeed help to know the "innards," as you say elsewhere.  And you're certainly right that sharpening a selected area can result in something which just doesn't look quite right.  About the only time I feel forced to use a selection tool is when it's necessary to apply fill light only to a specific area, like a heavily-shadowed recessed window...a situation where overall fill light doesn't work, in other words.  Not that Fill Light in Qimage hasn't saved my bacon a couple of times!  Occasionally, though, it needs to be selective, like sharpening.

Yep, it's clearly beige, sorry.  I noticed the wisps of hair, too.  As you say, a small detail which has an important effect.  And the photo itself is a textbook example of an image which should NOT have overall sharpening applied.  Strange things can happen to the nicely-out-of-focus background when that's done.  Thanks again for posting it.

Thanks, Terry, good example.  The difference in the white helmet is very apparent, but what's also significant upon closer examination is how TTS reveals the fine texture in the black jacket.  Toggle back & forth while looking closely at that area.  Impressive.

I don't quite understand what's going on here, because I do this regularly on the back of my photo note cards, no problem.

I'm not (I hope).  Actually, I'm in no position to judge, not being a programmer.

In the above, I meant, "simpler for the developer to implement," rather than implementing an array of selection tools which (as in most other photo editing programs) would allow selecting an area to be sharpened.  I could be completely off base here, too, though.

It's just that every time I found myself wishing for selective sharpening in Qimage, I reminded myself that Mike would have had to implement a half-dozen different selection tools, just like other photo editing programs.  Personally, I think TTS is a great way to go, since I'm not all that skilled with the selection tools in other programs.  It should be more than sufficient for my sharpening requirements, and in many cases will simplify my workflow.  I was just speculating that perhaps TTS was a bit simpler to implement than a bunch of selection tools.  Help me out, here.

Yes, and I assume that this method is simpler than developing an array of tools for selecting the area/areas to be sharpened?

Thanks, Terry, appreciate it.  I often shoot jpegs when they're perfectly appropriate for the end use.  I suspect I'm not alone in this.  As I said in another thread, I've often wished for selective sharpening in Qimage.  Now, essentially, that hole has been filled.  Great job, Mike.

Share the wealth, Terry!

Impressive, Fred, thanks for the examples.

+1, Mel.  What do we spend annually on ink cartridges alone?  I cannot count the number of photos I've printed or had printed without touching the file with any program but Qimage, and that includes an 18x24 from a Canon Powershot Pro1.  The only thing which I wanted that Qimage couldn't do was selective sharpening.  That hole has been filled.  Long-time user, upgraded to Pro and then Studio...wondering all the time how in the world Mike was making a living.  I'll be buying QU very shortly.

If my information is correct, these cameras have identical sensors and nearly-identical in-camera processing, so would the D90 profile be close enough to use?

+1 to what the OP said...even though I think I paid all of $35 for my first version of Qimage--which I bought simply because it was so nifty to be able to print multiple images neatly and compactly on one sheet of paper.  (This was before the "photo printing utility" was available in Windows.)  At the time, I don't think that I knew what interpolation meant--but since I was shooting with a Sony Mavica, I soon learned that Qimage was the only way I could print an acceptable 5x7.

I later upgraded to Pro, and some years (and several cameras) later was shopping for a raw converter when I realized that all I had to do was upgrade to Studio and just keep printing.  Like the OP, over the years I've received much more value from Qimage than the approx. $100 I've spent.  Five years ago, people looked at my prints and said, "That can't be digital."  Today, they look at my prints and say, "You printed this yourself?"

I know that I'm not the only one on this forum who has been worried about DDI Software's financial well-being.  I'm very glad to see Mike make this move.

And I will continue to make other people aware of Qimage whenever possible.  That includes my postings to other internet forums and comments I make about relevant articles or news stories.  Let's all do the same.  I want Qimage--and Mike--available for the rest of my life!

Same here.  Have wondered many times how much longer things could go on as they were.  Full speed ahead, Mike.

That's super, Terry, thanks much.