None of the Qimage versions do "selective" sharpening. However the USM filter with Equalisation is excellent.

There's nothing that beats having a print in your hand, something tangible and completely different from a screen view in terms of satisfaction.
Get those nozzles flowing!   

This is automatically compensated for in the RAW options settings

That's a tough one. I'll try cuz Terry is likely ready for sleep.
Raw or JPG?
Is the lens soft? Each shot calls for its own amount of USM.
In Raw mode, QSE applies a certain amount of USM as a default. If you set that correctly in EDIT RAW Preferences, you rarely will need any more.
In JPG mode it depends on what your camera does when it saves creates the JPG.

So for fun!     You will have to do trial and error.
In Raw mode, try setting USM to 2/175 with a 75% Equalizer.
In JPG mode in the batch filter, try 1/ 100   then 2/150... and last try 3/350 with 90% Equalizer.
You have to play with the settings and after a while your eye will know.
As Terry said, one print is worth a 1000 words. Make a print... scrutinize.... reset... and make another print.
After 5 sheets of paper, you will be offering advice. :-))

Fred

Ummm, I have already probably printed well over 200 sheets, and have quite liked my results! I just haven't done much with sharpening in Qimage (or, apparently, with many of Qimage's other tricks)--at least so far.

Liz

Liz, that's part of the "point"
Just because a tool is available, does not necessarily mean you must use it.
I have tried to impart that trial and error is the key.... but adding experience to know what you see on screen is what will print, makes the process much easier.
I have super sharp lens and I have one that is soft when wide open, and one that is soft (70-200 mm) except for 100-150mm. You can see that there can be be no single formula.

Just for fun, if you wanted to send one RAW image to me via email, and see if we agree on the USM needed, can do.

Fred

Really wonder if that last part is a reply to my message but even where UV is cut out at 350Nm with normal window glass there still is enough visible light getting through to fade weak components of a print. There are estimations that UV fading isn't contributing more than 15% of the total light fading indoors. The weak components include OBAs but in your case the cyan ink too as explained below. The use of OBA loaded papers is a risk if long term preservation is a goal. The effect of OBA in frames behind more or less UV cutting glass is limited too.

Your 1280 used Epson dyes that were originally claimed to be lightfast by Wilhelm and Epson but shortly after the introduction users complained about very fast cyan ink fading. Especially in places near shores with high Ozone concentrations. Office environments with laser printers have higher Ozone levels too. Epson compensated the US customers that complained after class action threaths. Epson adapted the US advertsing and product labelling accordingly. Wilhelm admitted that gas fading wasn't properly tested at that time. That case was called the Orange Plague and happened about 9 years ago. You will find reports on the web. The Colorfast paper though recommended for that dye ink type wasn't that archival either and certainly didn't stop the cyan fading.  Framing does help to reduce gas fading but one has to be very careful in selecting the materials used for mounting etc. so no gas is evaporated from tape and glues.

Whether Methane is healthy in relation to prints and humans is another question :-)


met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla

Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/

Thanks Ernst.
Good information for me. I learn all the time, and I appreciate you taking the time to share your knowledge.
At the time I printed and hung those 1280 prints, I was laughingly saying that I would turn yellow before the prints did.
Turned out close to a tie. !! :-)
Fred

Hey, Fred-
When you start pre-quoting yourself inside your answer, welllllllllll, TOO MUCH METHANE!  Open the window and leave the house immediately!!