Purple looks too grey on my D200 => why ???

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by pauline_solleveld, Jul 16, 2011.

  1. Hi everyone,
    Three years ago I bought a (new) Nikon D200. I'm an enthousiastic amateur, previously used a Nikon F60, this D200 is my first digital camera. Since the beginning, my D200 has had difficulty with the colours purple and lilac. At first I thought I just had to get to know the camera's settings, but I haven't been able to solve this problem. Other colours are acceptable (meaning reasonably resemble the original colour of the object photographed). But purple and lilac just get way too grey. The intensity of the colour is lost. I always adjust the white balance to the light situation, but purple never gets the way it looks in real life. (N.B. I never use the K-option to chose Kelvins, I use the preset WB-options.)
    I shoot in RAW, use 1600 and 800 ISO (but I've also used the lower ISO values, doesn't seem to help much). Because of the lense I mostly use (1:2.8), I never use flash. I admit I still don't know exactly all the (endless) options, since after I bought the camera, life has been very hectic, with birth of twins, and such...
    I've added 3 photos of the same situation, with different lenses (see below). The colours of the toy telephone are correct. The real life colours of the coat are much more intense than you can see on the photo. To give you an idea: the lilac inside of the coat is in reality the same colour as the blueberry ice cream in the picture I've added. (downloaded from internet, my D200 seems unable to take this photo !)
    All photos taken with lense at 50 mm, mode P (automatic), white balance 'cloudy', 800 ISO, Shoot A, Custom A and at Ch (= 5 frames/s).
    Photo 1:
    Nikkor AF 28-200 1:3.5-5.6 G ED with filter B+W 62 KR-1,5 Skylight 1,1x
    Photo 2:
    Nikkor AF 50 mm 1:1.8 D with filter B+W 52 E KR1,5 1,1x
    Photo 3:
    Nikkor AF-S 17-55 1:2.8 G ED DX with filter B+W 77 010 UV-Haze 1x MRC
    I use Compact Flash San Disk Extreme III 30 MB/s 4 and 60 MB/s 8 GB.
    Basically my question is:
    Am I doing something wrong ?
    Is something wrong with my camera ?
    Does anyone recognise this problem ?
    Looking forward to your ideas, experiences and advise !
    Thanks in advance !!!
    Pauline S.
    (The Netherlands)
  2. here's photo 2
  3. and here's the ice cream. The colour of the inside of the coat is in real life the same as this ice cram !
    Pauline S.
  4. Everything looks fine to me, especially the ice cream... which also looks very very yummy! If you really want accurate colors get a colorchecker passport thingie, or at least a whibal card.
  5. DId you also try this with white-balance set to "A" ( Auoto ) ?
    White balance set to "cloudy" asumes an environment color temp. of 6000 Kelvin which is quite high undewr most circumstances. , and since youy say you shoot RAW, you should be able to adjust the whitbalance in Post Processing easely...
  6. Try shooting at base ISO (100). High ISO is not known to be a color enhancement technique. And as long as you're
    shooting RAW, try tweaking WB in post -- this is truly one of the huge advantages of RAW format. Also, what about
    monitor calibration? Are you sure you're getting an accurate representation of your work on-screen? In my own
    experience, red is the difficult color to get right. It takes some time to get right, but it can be done.
  7. Simple photoshop adjustment (if it lets me upload the image) - increase the blue a bit - and you're there...
    Image quality is not the greatest since I did a copy paste and saved it as smallest JPG
  8. SCL


    I always thought purple and lilac were so subtle and accurate representation is tough. However, if you are using a white card to calibrate your color temp for each shot, you should be ok, especially shooting in RAW. High ISO sometimes seems to narrow the tonal range, but you mention that you still have a problem at low ISO. If you haven't properly calibrated your monitor you might find that could solve your problem, as I don't see anything out of whack with the samples photos you posted. The only other thing which occurs to me is that since your info above showed you were shooting in the programmed mode, you might try dialing in some exposure compensation to see if the lightening or darkening solves your problem by changing the intensity of the colors.
  9. Dear all,
    Thanks for your comments so far ! I'll look into it.
    To David, I'd like to say that I expect more from a D200 than the need to use PhotoShop for each picture...
    Kind regards,
    Pauline S.
  10. SCL


    Pauline - all RAW shots (regardless of camera body) need some post processing to draw out the best from them...that's why one shoots in RAW, to have the flexibility to make adjustments without destroying the original capture of as much data as the camera can achieve. In the olden days of film, the photo processor and printer made these decisions, now in the digital times it is up to you to do so. If you want to shoot JPEGs instead, you can program into your camera some of the (in camera) post processing, so it "automatically" will take place and you may not even need PS (things such as sharpening, color balance, saturation, etc). However, each time you open, adjust, and close post processing in a program (such as PS) on a JPEG, you lose/destroy some of the pixels. So, that's the tradeoff.
  11. "I'd like to say that I expect more from a D200"
    Many camera's have trouble with colors like purple. The biggest advantage of shooting RAW, as you're doing, is to be able to post process images to your liking.
    While you're at it, ditch the filters.
  12. As Stephen said. In my LaCied 24" calibrated monitor, I don't see any problem with the color. Having seen lots of complaints, about cameras of balance, color, white balance, exposures with sample images on PN, all of the turn out, or many of them, monitor problem, having a cheep, or uncelebrated monitor.
  13. Dear all,
    I've followed the advise of several of you to try a white balance card and/or lower ISO values ! :)
    I've tried the following:
    ISO 800 with use of grey card
    ISO 100 with use of grey card
    ISO 100 with WB 'cloudy' (for reference)
    I admit that the last one is the most grey-ish (so the comment on the WB 'cloudy' was correct, though cloudy weather, it was not the best for the current light !). Of the other two photos, the second one is the best (grey card + ISO 100). So the comment about the ISO values and colour, is very true as well. I'm grateful to know this now. Thanks !
    On the best photo, the lilac turns a little to pink too much now, but the colours itself are much more 'alive' than they were, less grey. It's definitely a lot better !
    Of course there's still the question of 'accurate representation'. I'm not sure whether you mean the view on the D200 screen or on my laptop (Apple MacBook) ?? Looking at the best photo, the D200 shows more grey than my laptop, but the laptop gives the lilac too much pink now (which the D200 doesn't). What to do ? I'm now getting a little lost here...
    Changing the amount of light used (+/- on my D200), didn't really influence the tone of colour (on my D200 screen).
    Thanks so far ! and if you can help me to improve this even more, I'd again be very grateful.
    Kind regards,
    Pauline S
  14. After posting my last comment, I read the new ones (the last 3). I'm sorry for my previous remark to David now. It's my inexperience that expected the D200 to do better. I didn't know this, but have learned now from several reactions that this is quite common. Using photo shop might in fact be a good idea after all...
    I'm sorry, David.
    Pauline S
  15. Pauline
    You are not doing anything wrong and your camera is fine. Getting the best colours is an art that takes time to learn and does need work outside the camera on Photoshop.
    What you are exerienecing is the issue of colour calibration and matching.
    You will find some helpful guides on this site.
    Basically a camera sensor and your eyes see the world differently and some colours that you can see a sensor cannot.
    Your setup menus in the D200 will have a significant effect on the look you get out of the camera
    In order to display colours correctly a monitor needs to be set up using a colour calibrator, your Apple Mac will not display colours as well as it could if you have not calibrated it. You cameras rear screen cannot be colour calibrated so you cannot use it for colour checking it is only good enough for a guide not critical analysis.(no rear screen monitor on any camera is colour calibrated)
    Along the process there are many different things reacting to the colour all of which will respond in a different way. So your eye, the sensor, the monitor and printing dyes will all react slightly diffrently. In the days of film we used to rely on someone at the processor to asses the colour and adjust if necessary. Even then it was not possible to match all the colours, consistency between prints made at different times was very hard to achieve.
    You D200 was a good camera when released in 2005 but you need to learn its limitations and work within them. In case you think this sounds like I am suggesting you by a new camera I am not, at least not just for this reason as colours and accurrate reproduction are still and will always be an issue whatever camera and however much you spend.
    As others have already said low ISO's give better colours than using 800 or 1600
  16. I've never had any problems with the purple / violet / magenta / red area when I was shooting with my old d200 that couldn't be explained by funky lighting, the wrong white balance settings or similar issues. If you are interested, I could post numerous images taken with my old camera that show this. Also, I wouldn't worry about your camera failing in some way which impacts the color balance. When they fail, they don't fail this way.
    It is almost certain (as was pointed out above) that the problem occurred because you used the "Cloudy" white balance setting. This setting tends to try to warm the image too much. Below is a two-click fix to your image: First, I simply used the white balance eyedropper tool in ACR. The brighter parts of the toy phone all gave approximately the same correction, which looks pretty good to my eye. Next, I adjusted the curves in ACR to brighten up your image and give it a bit more contrast. I have posted the result below.
    FWIW, since the filters that you used do cut slightly into the deep violet end of the spectrum, so it's possible that they were also contributing to the problem, but I would expect their effect to be quite small. I'd be much more concerned about the quality of the incident light (ie, almost like the CRI (color rendering index) on fluorescent bulbs) and then getting the best match to that in your in-camera color balance. As suggested above, using a white card to set a custom white balance is probably your best bet if you don't want to adjust it later in Photoshop.
    Tom M
    PS (in edit) - I stopped to eat lunch and didn't refresh my browser before I posted my reply, so I didn't see any of the latest posts in this thread. Sorry if I just duplicated what was done in that time.
  17. A "gray" (mid tone exposure) card is not necessarily neutral unless it is specifically marked as "neutral white balance". You are probably better off setting the white balance from the white of the calculator. As mentioned, you will also need a color corrected monitor to see the correct colors.
    Your last image does look significantly better, primarily due to better exposure. Remember that even white will look gray or black if underexposed.
  18. The D200 is a highly configurable camera designed for a pro or experienced amateur herself to to make choices on how the light is measured and how colors are rendered. That, and a good sensor, are what the expense is for. The expense is not so that the camera itself will choose to do all things for the photographer.
    Perhaps take a look at Amazon for a D200 guide since the owner's manual usually is not all that good as an instructional guide.
  19. Hi everyone !
    Thanks for all your valuable comments.
    I'm glad to know there's nothing wrong with my camera and WOW... I'm learning a lot !!!
    Of course, after reading your valued comments, I have a few new questions:
    To Tom Mann: Can you tell me what ACR is ? your photo looks great !
    Furthermore: I only added a filter on each lense to (basically) protect the lens against scratches. Is there a better choice of filter out there ? one that doesn't affect colours maybe ? (I understood the influance is small, but hey, it's easily improved)
    To Stephen Lewis who wrote: "However, each time you open, adjust, and close post processing in a program (such as PS) on a JPEG, you lose/destroy some of the pixels. So, that's the tradeoff." Is it different if you shoot in RAW compared to shooting in JPEG ?
    To Indraneel Majumdar who wrote "A "gray" (mid tone exposure) card is not necessarily neutral unless it is specifically marked as "neutral white balance"." Is a white card better than my grey card ? I have a grey card for digital photography (I mean... not just any card that happens to be grey). How come it's still not 'neutral' ?
    Please everyone, feel free to comment :)
    Thanks again !
    Pauline S.
    PS It's almost 9 pm here, I'll be on the web again tomorrow.
  20. Is there a better choice of filter out there ? one that doesn't affect colours maybe ?​
    Hoya HMC is usually a good choice. No filters are best, especially with a lens hood... unless you're near sand or water or worse.
    Is it different if you shoot in RAW compared to shooting in JPEG?​
    I do not know of any editors that modify and resave the raw data. Almost all editors do it in jpeg. So raw data does not degrade, while a jpeg image does (on repeated saves, even if you change nothing).
    How come it's still not 'neutral' ?​
    here's a link to explain it far better than I can. I've heard that the kodak gray card is also spectrally neutral, but have never used one.
  21. A few comments:
    - Don't use any filters on the lenses until after you've compared color with the filter on and off.
    - I didn't see any reference to which RAW converter was used. If it's a Nikon one and you don't make any adjustments in the converter, the converted RAW will look the same as the JPG out of the camera because they were converted with the same settings.
    - I shot two different purple flowers with my D200, D7000 (both RAW) and a S95 (JPG) in bright sunlight, ISO 100. Viewed in Nikon View 2NX the purples look very similar from all 3 cameras. Since they were shot in AWB the WB varies a bit so the purple varies a bit on the blue/red scale, but the color saturation is strong in all of them.
    - Try shooting some other objects that are purple and see if you have the same problem. A D200 shouldn't have any problem (with typical settings) reproducing purple.
  22. I came very close to the ice cream by increasing magenta, red, and blue saturation and slightly darkening in Curves. Here's a screen shot comparison.
  23. Pauline, what color space are you shooting at? Adobe RGB can look off color if not converted to sRGB for the web. It's best to shoot in sRGB for web and monitor display uses. Also be sure the conversion from the NEF RAW files are into sRGB. For DIY printing, Adobe RGB is better because of a wider color gamut, so set your RAW output accordingly. Read the camera manual for how to set the color space settings. Hope this helps.
  24. Pauline S: "...To Tom Mann: Can you tell me what ACR is ? your photo looks great !..." -
    FYI, ACR = Adobe Camera Raw
    The scrolling display at the end of the left column in: http://www.wildlifesouth.com/Photography/CameraRawWorkflow.html will give you an idea of the various adjustments that are possible in ACR. Although the interface is slightly different, ACR running under Photoshop does exactly the same things that ACR running under Lightroom.
    (taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_Photoshop#Plugins ):
    "Adobe Camera Raw (also known as ACR and Camera Raw) is a special plugin, supplied free by Adobe, used primarily to read and process raw image files so that the resultant images can be processed by Photoshop.[27] It is invoked by attempting to open such a file, rather than from the 'Filter' menu, but like other plugins is listed in the 'Help > About Plug-In' menu (as "Camera Raw"). It can also be opened via the Adobe Bridge by clicking on any image and selecting 'File > Open in Adobe Camera Raw'.?"
    See also: http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/extend.html
    @David L: Why did you mention other color spaces? It looks to me like everything the OP has posted thusfar has been in good ol' sRGB.
    Re: filters. Paulene, the filters that you listed will have vastly less effect on the colors in your images compared to (a) setting an appropriate (custom) white balance, and (b), learning to make color adjustments to your images using software.
    In case you are not aware of this, discussion of the use of protective filters on internet photography forums often reaches religious levels of heated fervor, both pro and con their use. I have the feeling that such a discussion/debate could easily break out once again in this thread, if only because there is someone new to proselytize to one side or the other. ;-)
    If you want the opinion of one of the most sensible people on photo.net (who also happens to be a moderator) on the subject of protective filters , scroll down to Shun Cheung [​IMG][​IMG][​IMG], Sep 02, 2009; 11:16 a.m. post in the lengthy thread, http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00UNFa, or eventually do your own tests on the particular lens / filter combinations that you use.
    If you feel more comfortable using UV and similar filters to protect your lens, that's fine. Once you get (a) and (b) above nailed down, then you can start worrying about the fine points, testing them for yourself, etc.
    Tom M
  25. My D200 doesn't have exactly this problem, but recently I've tried to set up UniWB with it - and it doesn't work. It's like it can't really see purple or something, so the UniWB thing just goes out of whack. Interestingly, it work well on D60.
    Maybe there is some related system issue.
  26. My D7000 seems to have a problem with purple as well. On the camera and on the computer a purple flower came out blue. Also printing did give a blue flower. But strangely enough, when converted to cmyk in Photoshop CS5.1, the screen color improved some and the print is know spot on.
    I find it strange that modern camera's have a problem with purple. My 10 year old Sony Mavica CD300 doesn't have any problem with it. Purple is always purple on the camera and on screen.
    Is there a specific reason that some colors don't match the real thing?
  27. Is there a specific reason that some colors don't match the real thing?​
    Yes. Digital cameras are twice as sensitive to green then to red and blue, since they have as many green photosites then the other two colors combined. The opposite of green is purple, which is combined of red and blue. Thus:
    1) The camera is least sensitive to purple. Thus, purple color needs to be amplified more than any other color, which whacks it up a bit.
    2) Purple is combined basically of only red and blue, without having the advantage of using the most sensitive photosites (green). Combination of two least sensitive colors = also bad.
    In other words, lots of things to go wrong.
    Also, since there aren't that many purple things in the world, cameras aren't exactly optimized for this color. Unlike, say, red. Even though cameras aren't especially sensitive to red, the engineers try to compensate for it using other means, like image processing. Purple apparently doesn't have that privilege.
    That's why I thought the OP's D200 behaves weird, since mine has problems with UniWB. After all, sensors age too.
  28. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

  29. WRT UV filters, they basically do nothing! Those little "note tester" LED lights are an easy and cheap source of UV to buy these days, and coupled with some fluorescent paint or just plain white copier paper, they allow you to see any absorption or attenuation of UV easily. Having used this simple setup to test the UV absorbtion of a variety of so-called UV filters, I can tell you they nearly all come a bad second to a simple 3mm thick piece of Perspex (Plexiglass), a clear resin filter or even a thick piece of window glass. In other words they stop almost no UV at all! The only 2 UV filters I tested that absorb enough UV to make a jot of difference are the discontinued Nikon L39 and a similar B+W 390nm cutoff filter. In fact I notice that Nikon have now stopped making any claim to UV absorption for their current range of clear filters and simply label them as clear lens-protect filters.
    Anyhow, back to the OP's question. Because of the very narrow bandwidths of Red, Green and Blue filter fitted to most camera sensors, a lot of pure (i.e. monochromatic) colours will "fall down the gaps" between the filter bands. You can see this easily if you try to photograph the spectrum of the sun cast by a glass prism, or even a bright rainbow. Yellows, cyans and deep violets all disappear from the spectrum leaving only three stripes of red, green and blue that overlap hardly at all.
    Luckily for us - and the camera manufacturers that perpetuate the above situation - pure spectral colours are fairly rare in nature and most man-made and natural pigments and dyes reflect a very broad band of colour that can be reasonably faithfully captured by the overly narrow RGB sensors of the camera. However, purples, mauves and magentas are non-spectral colours composed mainly of red and blue with almost no green in their composition. This means that the way in which they interact with the camera filters is dependent on a lot of factors: the red and blue components of the particular shade of purple; the wavelengths of red and blue that dominate within that colour and the red and blue balance of the ambient light among other things. Also the over sensitivity of many cameras to Infrared doesn't help here either.
    That's just on the camera end of things, we haven't even considered the rubbishy filter dyes used in most LCD displays or their discontinuous fluorescent backlights. Or the less-than-perfect dyes used in inkjet printers. Or.......
    This all boils down to it being pretty much impossible to accurately capture every shade of purple (or cyan, or yellow) that you come across in real life. We just have to learn to live with these shortcomings and if it's important to match a particular colour, then it just has to be "fudged" in Photoshop or similar.
    PS. Incidentally there's no need for any fancy expensive White-Balance hardware or even a Greycard. Just use a sheet of white copier paper doubled up to increase its reflectivity.
  30. Rodeo Joe, thanks for your explanation.
    But is raises new questions as well. I don't want to hijack this thread from Pauline, but maybe she will benefit from this as well.
    • A purple flower displayed on the camera (Nikon D7000) or screen looks blue, but when transformed to cmyk it prints purple?
    • A 10 year old Sony does in fact display the flower in purple and when showed on the screen it is also in purple? (this Sony is in it's default configuration and the print is purple as well)
    Can somebody explain this?
  31. Hi everyone !
    It's very interesting to read all your comments on camera settings, photo processing and much more. To answer some of your questions:
    The colour space setting on my D200 is sRGB. (I think it's the default setting.)
    I use Nikon View NX to watch RAW files on my laptop as well as convert them into JPEG (using View NX's standard settings).
    Several people (or should I say everyone ? ;-) ) has suggested that I use computer programs for enhancing colour. I'll start doing that ! From the uploaded Photoshop / ACR pictures I see they indeed look great. I was under the impression that by increasing e.g. blues, all colours would turn more blue, but from the uploaded photos I see this is not the case. The other colours seem 'untouched'. WOW ! The newest photo uploaded by David L. is spot on !
    Someone wrote that purple isn't that common in every day life. That's true... but I happen to have a 3-year old daughter who adores the colour. She choses this colour for any object (she has a coat, sweater, boots, T-shirt, pants, hair ornaments, yes... even the frame of her glasses is purple !). So it's practically impossible to take her photo without any purple in it ! l-) Okay... I'll try to convince her of the beauty of green ;-)
    Thanks for all your advise as well as the links with information on the subject. I didn't find time to read the links yet, but I definitely will. Thanks again for all your help so far !
    Kind regards,
    Pauline S.
  32. You may get better results if you shoot aRGB (I do). It is a simple setting change.
  33. Elliot Bernstein [​IMG][​IMG], Jul 18, 2011; 01:08 p.m.:
    - - - "You may get better results if you shoot aRGB (I do)"
    But by her own statement in the post which immediately preceded yours, and with a quick look at the EXIF data for the images she posted in the thread, it's clear the OP does use sRGB:
    Pauline S , Jul 17, 2011; 04:34 p.m - "...The colour space setting on my D200 is sRGB..."
    Am I missing something?
    Tom M
  34. Hi all,
    I'd like to ask you, in response to the previous two comments on 'a' or 's' RGB and also to David L. who previously wrote:
    "Adobe RGB can look off color if not converted to sRGB for the web. It's best to shoot in sRGB for web and monitor display uses. Also be sure the conversion from the NEF RAW files are into sRGB. For DIY printing, Adobe RGB is better because of a wider color gamut, so set your RAW output accordingly."
    Why ???
    Supposing aRGB stands for AdobeRGB, what is the basic difference between the two ? (Don't hesitate to use any physics terms if you need to.)
    So does this mean I basically have to know what I'll be using the picture for, even before taking it, in order to have the best result ? sounds weird somehow... doesn't it ?
    Can I somehow convert the two ? from aRGB to sRGB or the other way around ??
    I may want to use pictures for both prints as well as web / monitor display.
    In Nikon View NX I looked into the conversion settings wich are (still default I suppose) to automatically convert RAW into sRGB JPEGs. Should I use different conversion settings to convert RAW files for different uses, e.g. if I wish to print them myself ?
    I've recently converted some pictures from RAW to (sRGB) JPEG, uploaded them on the web and had them printed on large size photopaper for framing. They look good (but don't include any purple). I do this more often, so... Is a 'laboratory' print any different in 'colour needs', I mean... do I need to send them different (aRGB / sRGB) JPEGs than I would use to print at home ???
    Again, thanks in advance and looking forward to all practical as well as theoretical comments !
    Good night,
    (11:15 p.m. The Netherlands)
  35. P.S. Where I wrote "Can I somehow convert the two ? from aRGB to sRGB or the other way around ??
    I may want to use pictures for both prints as well as web / monitor display."
    I meant... :
    Once a photo is taken in sRGB, I suppose it's best when converted with sRGB to JPEG ?
    Does it lose quality if a RAW picture taken in sRGB, is converted to JPEG in aRGB ??
    Thanks in advance !
  36. Color Space (sRGB/aRGB) when set in the camera only really matters if you are shooting JPGs and not RAW. Color Space is a target when doing the RAW conversion. The sRGB color space is smaller (can't reproduce the same range of colors) than aRGB. A large color space is good when you have full control of the complete process from image capture to final output, but can create problems when you don't, and then sRGB is better. My recommendation is sRGB for anything on line and aRGB if you have full control for printing. If you are using a printing service, then you have to know if they prefer one color space over the other.
  37. When you do a search with Google to find out what sRGB and aRGB is and what should be used, you find a lot of info. Most say it is best to use sRGB and convert to whatever is needed after wards. The fact that sRGB has a smaller gamut then aRGB is something most printers and screens can't even show. There is even a debate going on on several forums in Nikon's interpretation of aRGB is really the same as Adobe CS5 RGB.
    For a more (complex) explanation see here: http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/sRGB-AdobeRGB1998.htm
    On this forum there has been a thread about this same subject in 2007 (http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00Kgzt) and currently there is a thread on this subject on dpreview (http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1006&message=38905105&changemode=1).
    After reading all this, I leave my Nikon in sRGB and convert whenever needed to another color space. Most commercial printing services can do any conversion needed and often don't charge you for it.
  38. "I expect more from a D200 than the need to use PhotoShop for each picture..."​
    That's like saying "I expect more from Kodak film than the need to develop every roll."
    Digital files require processing. The camera tries to do some processing in the instant that the photo is captured, but you can achieve better results with some deliberate and conscious work. The good news is that with a program like Lightroom, the adjustments that you make to one photo can be applied easily to others. So if you can fix the purple problem for one shot you'll be able to fix a hundred more with a few clicks of the mouse.

Share This Page