I still consider myself a novice at post-processing, including the use of USM, although TTS in QU has simplified my life.

However, this info from the Luminous Landscape site leads me to wonder if I've been too conservative when applying USM.  Would appreciate your thoughts on the rule of thumb described below.  Underlining is mine.  Bold is emphasis in the original.

Yep, same here.  But I don't think that I've always applied USM to the point where halos are just visible when viewed at 100% magnification, as the writer recommends.  Will have to experiment and make a few test prints.  I remember a few cases where the image on screen looked a bit "crispy," but the print looked just right.

Appreciate your input.

I disagree with people that advocate processing images for the sake of processing, and then call that "Their work flow".
I have loads of images that are so very razor sharp that they do not need processing, and would suffer from adding anything, especially sharpening.
How can anyone write an article advocating adding sharpening to "all" images until....
I would not expect a doctor to prescribe medicine without seeing and examining his patient, as I would not expect a photo guru to prescribe adding Unsharp Mask to every image without inspecting the image first.
I live near the Gulf of Mexico. A large % of my pictures are mostly sky, water, and clouds, with a subject of people on a beach, birds, a boat, or no specified subject. All three, sky water and clouds making up the scene.
I surely do not want to sharpen sky, water or clouds for obvious reasons.
That's why I love my Qimage Ultimate with the ability to "accent" the boat or people or bird or lighthouse.... without touching the sky, clouds or water.

I see no way to lump anyone's images into a rule that advocates sharpening to the halo.

As for ghosting, I don't put that into the same basket with halos.
I have seen and even created ghosting by over use of other processing tools on an image with, as Mr. Steffel says, has the sun behind it and a sky background.
No Sharpening added at the time.
Nevertheless, he is correct in the thinking that processing is a tool to be used with prudence and care.  Not with wild abandon because someone wrote an article.

Fred

That's just the point....
All RAW images are inherently soft/   Jpgs are processed in the camera with added amounts of sharpening, saturation, etc.
So now we think about what Q-Ultimate does as we open a fresh folder of Raw photos in Qimage.
We have already, by default, (See EDIT Preferences, Raw options) set a baseline of Unsharp Mask type sharpening.
This is set by the user by camera model usually.
We work from this baseline, deciding later.... if that image needs more sharpening.
If we find that every image, all the time, different lighting conditions, needs more sharpening, we can adjust the baseline.
See my snap attached.
Image #100 is the default that you use when you first get your Qimage Ultimate.

Image #097 is my setting that matches MY camera, and the lens I use most.
These settings are not critical nor coarse or impactful.
They are ballpark settings so you hardly see a change if you make a change.

Image #098 is showing you how you can have multiple presets that you can load with a click.
I have a preset for a 20 D and D 60 Canon, plus a 350D, and a Lumix G-1 (Not mine).

So you can see the multi faceted uses of USM on Raw images.
I have a Canon 17-40mm lens that I don't use often enough, that is so sharp, it is scary.
My default setting for USM is on the edge for that lens....
Lots of variables.
That's why I believe you can not make a blanket protocol of adding sharpening to every image after the fact.

Fred

Thanks for that link, David!