Color checker passport vs Macbeth color checker

I recently purchased the x-ritecolorchecker passport. In the past after i finished shooting my projects,  I would shoot few shoots in different f-stops with the Macbeth color checker, and later i would pen the Macbeth shots from the Camera Raw, and i would click on either gray or white for the white balance. Also some times i would use a Gray card, and it worked fine.
Now i purchased the color checker passport, and i would like to know if i am doing the job correctly or not. From what i heard, what i need to do is:
1- shoot from the color checker passport after finishing my project
2- From the Adobe DNG Converter convert the .CR2 file to .DNG
3- Open the color checker and Drag and Drop the .DNG file into the colorchecker.
4- Save the .dcp file into my camera raw profile.
5- from the camera raw calibration Tab,instead of Adobe Standard profile, or any other profiles change it to the .dcp file that i created from the color checker passport
6- from the camera raw Presets,with the eye dropper tool select a gray or white area, and save it for my white balance
7- Apply the white balance to my shoots.
The question i have is why do i need the passport, if i can do the same thing with Macbeth card ?
please let me know what i am missing.
Thanks
Simon

Any help please
Thanks
simon

Similar Messages

  • Need  help using color checker passport with photoshop CS6

    Hello all,
    I'm having an issue using the Color Checker Passport with Photoshop CS6.  Here's my configuration:
    Mac Mini using OS 10.8, but very recently updated to 10.9 (Mavericks).  My problem is the same on either OS version.
    Photoshop CS6 ver 13.0.6 64 bit extended
    Adobe Camera Raw 8.4
    X-Rite Color Checker Passport ver 1.0.2
    Canon 70D shooting RAW in sRGB color space
    NEC Multi-Sync LCD monitor calibrated with Spyder 3 Pro ver 4.0.5
    Now here's the issue.  I go through the recommended workflow and generate a profile with no problem.  Then in Camera Raw (after restarting all applications) I apply the profile to a photograph and instead of getting a nice color-corrected image my image has a greenish-yellow tint to it.  It's very noticeable and I haven't been able to figure out what I'm doing wrong, if anything.  I re-calibrated the monitor, re-did the workflow with other pictures, but still get the same result.
    I greatly appreciate any help or ideas on how to remedy this.  I've sent an inquiry to X-Rite via their Support Web Page, but haven't heard back from them yet.
    Thanks,
    Kevin H.

    Hello all,
    I'm having an issue using the Color Checker Passport with Photoshop CS6.  Here's my configuration:
    Mac Mini using OS 10.8, but very recently updated to 10.9 (Mavericks).  My problem is the same on either OS version.
    Photoshop CS6 ver 13.0.6 64 bit extended
    Adobe Camera Raw 8.4
    X-Rite Color Checker Passport ver 1.0.2
    Canon 70D shooting RAW in sRGB color space
    NEC Multi-Sync LCD monitor calibrated with Spyder 3 Pro ver 4.0.5
    Now here's the issue.  I go through the recommended workflow and generate a profile with no problem.  Then in Camera Raw (after restarting all applications) I apply the profile to a photograph and instead of getting a nice color-corrected image my image has a greenish-yellow tint to it.  It's very noticeable and I haven't been able to figure out what I'm doing wrong, if anything.  I re-calibrated the monitor, re-did the workflow with other pictures, but still get the same result.
    I greatly appreciate any help or ideas on how to remedy this.  I've sent an inquiry to X-Rite via their Support Web Page, but haven't heard back from them yet.
    Thanks,
    Kevin H.

  • Lightroom 5.5 and Color Checker Passport

    have found out the problem with not being able to export images. If I create and use a color profile using Color Checker Passport it will not allow the images to be exported using 'edit in' if I use a standard Adobe profile then it will export as normal....

    Mine Edit In PS 2014 in either case.  When you say “will not allow” do you mean PS never opens or that PS opens but the image never does?
    I wonder if there is a permission problem on the custom-user-profiles folder that such non-Adobe profiles are stored in.

  • Custom Camera Profile List (Color Checker Passport)

    Hi
    I am new to Lightroom 4.3 and have a question regarding Custom Camera Profiles. I have created custom profiles using Color Checker Passport for sunny, cloudy, flash, tungsten etc but would really like to create one for most shoots. I thought it would be a good idea to name it say "Temp" and overwrite each time so that I dont end up knee deep in camera profiles. But I am guessing if I do this will the latest saved version of "Temp" change the camera profile of all other previously saved versions of "Temp" from other shoots?
    It would be good if the saved version of "Temp" resided within the folder of that particular shoot only.

    twenty_one wrote:
    In fact I'm amazed at how good the Adobe Standard profile is (Nikon D300/700) - I have never been able to improve on it for sheer accuracy.
    ColorChecker Passport profiles I created for my Canon 5D MKII, 600D and 300D bodies looks better than the Adobe Standard profile, with both set to the same neutral white balance. This includes both single-illuminant and dual-illuminant profiles.
    Take a look at the below images which were adjusted in LR using normal adjustments for a "picture" image, and not adjusted as a test chart. The Deep Blue and Purplish Blue patches have a slightly different hue and are more saturated on  my non-wide gamut display. I'm sure they would look even more different on a wide gamut display. The ColorChecker profiled image looks closer to the actual ColorChecker when compared side-by-side. Some of the other color patches also have more saturation, which again appears more accurate.
    I am certainly no "expert" on color management, but do have over 40 years of film, color darkroom, and digital imaging experience. To me the ColorChecker profile image looks better and more accurate than the Adobe Standard profile image, and that's just my opinion. Maybe it's something unique to Adobe's Canon profiles, but I have no Nikon equipment to test this assumption.
    Concerning the OP's creation and use of multiple "sunny, cloudy, flash, tungsten etc. profiles," I did the same thing when I first used the CC Passport. And you're correct that for normal sunlight pictures only one (1) profile is actually needed, with changes made to white balance for the different conditions. But there is nothing wrong with creating multiple profiles and saving them with their matching white balance settings as a Develop preset. Disk space is cheap and IMHO LR simplifies the process and organization of presets, just as Rob Cole suggested.
    I would suggest further that under some natural lighting conditions white balance alone may not totally correct the image. Examples would be high-altitude, early morning and evening low-angle sunlight, etc. Of course this begs the question of how much should you actually "correct" these images – It depends on the purpose, such as artistic versus clinical usage, or a balance of both.

  • Color Checker Passport W/Elements 12 No/Yes? Light Room?

    Yes, I'm at it again with my seemingly endless questions, sorry.
    Probably buying, ( no, defintely if compatible,) the X-Rite Color Checker Passport program.  I am having difficulty ascertaining definitevly, if the Color Checker program will be FULLY functional with Photoshop Elements 12 without the Light Room program?
    I have read the X-rite manual on line and at first there is mention that indicates it is compatible with Elements, but later in the manual it talks about function and proceedure that only mentions Light Room and NOT Elements.  Does this mean I need Light Room to perform these particular steps or are they assuming that I do have Light Room if I am at the point these particular steps are being performed?  Does this question make sense?
    I have so many photo editing and processing programs now I don't know why I would need another but if I have to buy Light Room too, I will.
    Look forward to your responses,
    P.

    Hi hatstead
    I was initially thinking the same thing as well.  If I can't get the image I want in my own capture I will have to think about a professional.  But from many sources I have read that the Passport tool, which is only $99, makes post processing much more effective.
    I have tried adjusting the picture that has started this whole purchase of equipment process, with the wonderfully helpful hints from you and many others.   This particular picture will not come out to my satisfaction.  It looks very nice with many of the things I have done to it and as I have said before, if I were just selling it as a print and not concerned with depicting the ACTUAL ORIGINAL work, I'd be satisfied.  Heck, I have even considered creating a series of some of my paintings with different effects and colors for offer as prints.  I did this with a photograph of mine and I love the results.
    If it were just this one painting I was concerned with I would probably take your suggestion.  But I plan on creating more canvases and I don't want to go through this again and I like the idea of controlling my own work flow for multiple projects.
    From what I understand, the Color Checker will save me time with more complicated editing techniques.  Because my paintings have so much color in varying hues, tones, tints ,etc. throughout the canvass, selecting and adjusting is very difficult for me.  Especially when you take into account the depth of the paint on the surface and the texture of the canvass beneath.
    I have been working with the program since November as you might recall, and finally got to a comfortable point for dealing with photographs of actual objects.  I believe you helped me with some of those issues, .  And probably users with many more years of experience might be able to utilize the PSE program to conduct PP on canvas paintings but I need to be able to post the images of the canvasses sooner rather than later.  "Time is money..."
    If I have the Color Checker Passport I should be able to take advantage of "minor PP" with Elements 12, at least that is my goal.
    The Light Room software may be within my financial means as well if it is required.  Do you know if it is required to operate Passport with Elements?
    Always thankful for your input,
    Regards,
    P.

  • X-rite color Checker Folder Path

    I am a photo assistant based in Montreal I'm having issue with X-rite profile location in computer folder...
    We did create a custom profile with color checker passport during a shoot, re-starded Lightroom then used the custom profile. From there, everything work fine!
    My Problem is that after several shoot we have so many profiles in the list (in Lightroom) so we want to delete some manually in the laptop folder. I have been searching over forum during the past 2 days...every forum say that the good path to see them is:
    Library/Applications Support/Adobe/CameraRaw/CameraProfiles/
    But, iI can't see them in this folder...
    My question is: Where did they go and how can I delete/manage these? cause right now we have too much profile in Lightroom profile listing.
    We using a Macbook pro laptop (2014) with a 5d mark III
    Thanks in advance, Pascal

    Non-Adobe profiles reside under your Users folder.  See the following page:
    http://www.lightroomqueen.com/articles-page/lightroom-5-default-locations/

  • Color checker profile (in lightroom) only work for JPEG file?

    I followed all tutorials for color checker-lightroom and succeeded to sync my JPEG images into the camera profile I want.
    However, these are JPEG images from the camera. I want to work with raw file or at least PSD file.
    So my retouch pipeline was:
    - opened my raw file
    - save it as PSD
    - back to lightroom and open it there
    - and intended to sync this PSD file image with the camera profile
    But this is impossible to do, because suddenly all the camera profile  options (the ones we generated via color checker passport and the  default adobe profile) are dissapeared. The only option of camera  profile now is "embeded".
    That's it. So does it mean that I have to convert my raw file into JPEG first ?
    If yes, it's very unpractical and I can loose a lot of data bcause I  thought saving it to PSD or TIF keep the image data better than into  JPEG.
    Confused..
    Thanks for your point of views.

    In LR Preferences / External Editing you can control things about the LR-to-PS transfer:  the file format (PSD/TIFF), the color profile (sRGB, AdobeRGB, ProPhotoRGB), and the bit-depth (8 vs 16). 
    My Edit-in-Photoshop is set to use PSD, ProPhotoRGB, 16-bit.  I have chosen this because it gives me a large colorspace, with millions of distinct colors and a file-format that can contain smart-layers and other Photoshop-specific things.  LR, itself, is using a color-sapce as large as ProPhotoRGB and I don’t want to lose colors just because I’m editing in Photoshop, at least not until I’ve finished my adjustments in PS.
    A large colorspace with millions of colors gives more freedom for extreme adjustments before color banding (posterization) or color-shifting (channel clipping) at the bright end of the histogram.  The downside is that before I can save my photo as JPG for general viewing is that I need to set PS / Edit / Convert Profile to sRGB and PS / Image / Mode to 8-bit.
    It sounds like you are saving your photos as 8-bit ProProtoRGB not realizing you also need to convert to sRGB as your color profile.  For browsers and operating-systems that don’t do color-management correctly, which is most browsers and Windows-halfway, your ProPhotoRGB color numbers in the JPG are being interpreted as sRGB which makes them much duller and less saturated.   It may be that you have your External Editing set to 8-bits, which is not a good idea if you are using ProPhotoRGB as your colorspace, so set it to 16-bit.

  • Way to adjust black/white levels using color checker card in FCP6?

    When I shoot, I use a Gretag MacBeth white balance card for the camera, and also shoot a grey scale ColorChecker card with black, grey and white areas.
    When I apply a 3 way color checker, sampling the black, then white, then grey in that order, I don't really notice any visible change (which I guess is good!).
    But, I was hoping that it would also notice that the black in my video, is not really the blackest legal black - and make adjustments for that - and also the brightest whites.
    I guess the 3-way color correction only does, who would guess?, color correction.
    Is there a way to use the color checker card with some some included in FCP or 3rd party tools to make the blacks in my image closer to the blackest legal blacks, whites closes to the whitest legal whites - or am I totally missing the point?
    The video actually looks great, but I was wondering if there was some way to further enhance it, using the color checker card - which seems to be a useful standard?

    Zebulun - I seem to remember a few years back doing still photography - where I'd eyedropper a white point, and eye dropper a black point, to change the value Photoshop thought was white and black.
    And, I guess I was hoping to be able to do something like that using the black, grey and white of that card.
    Is there anyway the card could be used with the waveform? It just seems logical somehow that if you know for sure, here's what black is, here's what white is, that that info could be used for other purposes than color balance?

  • RE: Color Checker

    Hello Every one I have a question please and I appreciate it very much if you could help me.
    I was watching a Tutorial on Color Checker and I want to make sure I am doing it Correctly.
    I shot some pictures,  and I also shot a picture from a Color Checker with the same Lighting.
    Before I shot the pictures I shot a gray card and I used Custom White Balance."" Canon 5d"""
    I Imported all the pictures and the shot from the Color Checker. I clicked on  File- Export preset- Color Checker passport and I did saved the profile . I did restarted Lightroom, and Inside Profile, I named and saved the profile.
    And I Sync it to all my Images.  Later I Exported all the Images as DNG. 
    When I watched the Tutorial, It showed, after you saved your profile you must  pick the Eye dropper and click on one of the white or gray color swatches inside the Color checker to get the correct white balance. and later apply that profile to all your images.
    I don't know if this is correct or not, Because If Lightroom already created a profile from the color checker why I have to get a white balance again.
    Also when I open my DNG Images inside Camera Raw do I need to apply any white balance or I should leave it as Is ?
    Once again thank you very much for all your helps in the past.

    I deleted my first reply to this message because it was based on your initial version of the post that didn’t have any tutorial links in it, yet.   Had those tutorial links been in the first or second message it would have saved a lot of back-and-forth.
    Having seen what your questions relate to, I’ll try to answer your questions:
    Question 1:  “Should I eyedropper-WB the CC image before or after exporting it?”  This refers to the Export using the CCPP export preset that creates the custom color profile based on the CCPP image.
    You can eyedropper the WB of the CC photo before Exporting it but you don’t have to.  I do eyedropper my CC image before creating the profile so I know what WB the profile is being created for.  This is useful to me in naming my profiles as well as useful to see if I’m creating a redundant profile, one that I’ve created for very similar lighting from a previous photoshoot.  I initially created maybe a dozen custom color profiles based on different lighting scenarios and I still shoot a CCPP when I think I might be in novel lighting, but I rarely create a new custom profile because the lighting scenarios are pretty much covered by my previously created profiles. 
    As far as eyedroppering after, you do need to eyedropper some neutral color somewhere in your images to synchronize the rest of the images to but this is not related to the process of creating the custom camera profile despite the two things being shown back-to-back in the first tutorial, it is related to wanting your WB to be right regardless of whether you’ve just created a custom profile or not.  If your CCPP image is large enough then you can use the next-to-white patch as an eyedropper WB neutral area.  If you are shooting at more of a distance then maybe use a larger neutral target such as the other white-only CCPP page.
    The first tutorial also shows how to tweak the WB a little by eyedroppering on the slightly bluish patches to warm on the portrait photo or by clicking on either the slightly more green or slightly more magenta paths to warm up or cool down a landscape shot.  This is not setting the initial WB, it is tweaking the WB or adding a slight color cast to warm up or cool down your images.  I don’t use these WB-tweaking patches at all but in a tutorial about how to use the CCPP it is good to show them being used so you can understand what everything is for.
    Question 2:  “If I export as DNG and open that DNG in PS-ACR, do I need to eyedropper-WB, again?” 
    The answer depends on if your DNG already contains the development settings you applied in LR or not.  If it does, then the WB you set in LR should get picked up and used so no need to WB, again, but if upon opening your DNG in ACR you see the default WB such as As Shot when you know you’ve applied a custom WB in LR, then you probably need to figure out why the LR WB isn’t transferring over, rather than redoing the WB in ACR.  If you are using a plain raw file and not a DNG, then the LR settings can be saved into an XMP sidecar file next to the raw file of the same base name.   Those XMP files can either be created automatically if you have the preference set to do this, or can be created explicitly with a Save Metadata to Files command from either a right-click menu or using the Metadata menu item.
    Are you asking this second question because you’re not seeing the custom WB set in LR carry through to ACR?
    Some more comments about the tutorials.  I wouldn’t stand so close to my model to shoot a custom WB because I’d be concerned I was blocking the light and changing the ratio of ambient to flash and therefore change the color temperature by standing so close. 
    Another issue with at least one of the tutorials is that when they are synchronizing the WB across multiple images they are leaving too many other checkboxes enabled.  If I was merely trying to synchronize WB then I’d probably enable only the WB and Calibration checkboxes.
    My suggestion about what to do for each lighting change is to shoot a CCPP, a CCPP-neutral page, and maybe set your camera’s custom WB to that CCPP-neutral page.   After importing the images into LR eyedropper either the CCPP or the CCPP-neutral page and then synchronize the other photos in the same lighting as those to the reference image.  Once you know what the WB is, then scan your lists of existing custom color profiles for one that is close.  If there is then use that custom profile, otherwise create a new custom-profile.  Now you see why I want to put the WB numbers as part of the name of the profile, so save myself some work and clutter if I really don’t need to create another profile because one already exists.  TO summarize, you don’t necessarily need to create a new custom color profile for each lighting change, but you do want to re-WB a reference and re-sync that to the others in the same lighting.

  • Can I have "All spots to process" checked at all times, even for new spot colors?

    When I check “All spots to process” in the pdf export settings and save my settings the settings remember that I've checked this option. But, if new spot color objects using new spot color swatches are added to the document (or another document) and I go into the pdf export settings the check mark has been changed into a dash (with the actual checkbox highlighted) – signifying that only some of of the spot colors will be changed to process colors during export. I absolutely fail to see how this could possibly be seen as a feature and not a bug … if the user has checked “ALL spots to process” wouldn't the user expect ALL spots to be converted to process colors, rather than just any spot colors that happened to be in the document that happened to be open when the user first checked that checkbox and saved that setting?
    Am I missing something here? What's the point of even having that checkbox as part of your saved export settings if it doesn't include any other spot colors than those used when saving the settings?
    What's the point of having settings if you can't trust them, and still need to manually "override" them every time?
    I see that some users have taken to writing scripts that instead turn all spot colors in the swatch panel to process colors, and while I commend them for creating that workaround, I'm still pissed at Adobe for not getting the function right.
    If this is a feature, who is it for? People who want to add just certain spot colors and turn those into process colors rather than turning all spot colors into process colors are surely better off doing that in the swatches panel, where they're in total control of what's what. And if they don't want to "permanently" change their spot colors to process colors, and prefer to (temporarily) convert them during exporting/printing only, they can do that in the ink manager. But when someone checks convert "All spots to process" couldn't we safely assume they really want ALL spot colors to be converted and not just some of them? I mean, the way that checkbox behaves now, it's like it's a button and not a checkbox. As in: hit the button "All spots to process" to switch all currently viewed spot colors to process colors in the ink manager, OR check the "All spots to process" checkbox to always convert ALL spot colors to process colors during exporting/printing.
    Anyone got any light to shed on this?
    And is there a way to actually get the advertised behavior, because if you have to run a script every time you export/print you might as well just manually select the checkbox every time instead, but either way it's just really unnecessary as far as I'm concerned … Adobe should get the feature right instead.
    If you save a setting and recall it, it shouldn't be possible for that setting to change into something else (in this case changing a checkmark to a dash).
    Clearly CMYK printing is the norm, so for most users it would make a lot of sense to have the "All spots to process" checked most of the time, and then you just go into the swatches panel or the ink manager and set things correctly for those print jobs that really do need spot colors.
    I myself am not one of those who add spot colors to my swatches unless I'm really using them as spot colors, but I often work with magazines and folders featuring adverts made by whoever, and typically there's always at least one advert that features spot colors, and therefore it would be very nice if the "All spots to process" feature actually worked as advertised without any required actions from me.
    We stopped sending ads back to the advertisers for adjustments a long time ago, unless we absolutely had to, because there were so many things wrong with so many ads that it was simply too much work to write back and explain everything to people who most of the time didn't even understand what we were talking about. We found that it was usually a LOT faster and easier to just adapt the ads ourselves, as long as it was something that could be worked out really quickly from within InDesign itself, which pretty much included most typical errors.
    But with this feature I find Adobe is trying to make my job harder rather than easier, and it's pissing me off. Arrrghh… ;-)

    But It's not a preference it's a shortcut
    It's a bad joke, is what it is. ;-)
    So, why in your opinion should it be presented the way it is? I keep saying in it's current functionality it shouldn't be presented the way it is (and that: if it is, it shouldn't work the way it does). If it's not a preference or even a proper checkbox, why present it that way?
    If you put it right next to the table at the top of the window (so that it's directly associated with that information, rather than information right above it) and just called the checkbox “Spot(s) to process” and had it only visually reflect the content of the sleected spot colors in the table, then I'd see your point with likening it to the “Hyphenate” checkbox.
    If a story has two selected paragraphs that uses two different hyphenation settings then the checkbox should present the way it does now, but if you hit the checkbox so that both paragraphs now use hyphenation and create a third paragraph inbetween the two previous ones it better inherit that setting and not turn off hyphenation for the new paragraph (unless of course there's a defined next paragraph style that switches to a style with hyphenation turned off). And if that checkbox said “Hyphenate all paragraphs” instead, then I would expect it to do just that, and not just the selected ones, and not just the current paragraphs but quite literally all paragraphs even newly created ones – otherwise it doesn't do what it says it does, and simply shouldn't be labeled that way.
    And seriously bad interface design aside, you'd have to rename “All spots to process” to “Switch all currently displayed spot swatches listed in the table above to process” to actually describe what that checkbox does. So even if you're a fan of the current functionality, as opposed to one that actually lets the user set and forget a setting like that, and think it's better that users manually check it repeatedly (which I'm not saying that you are, but you're not giving me any feedback suggesting you even see my point of view with any of this, so what do I know?), then why wouldn't you still support an interface that visually matches/signals that functionality better? If it's a “Select all” checkbox supplementing a table containing a column of checkboxes, then present it that way. Don't put it at the bottom of the window next to another checkbox that works just like a regular checkbox and label it “All spots to process” – because that way you are signalling a different behavior.
    Seriously, if I was to do design using the same mentality that Adobe uses when designing their user interfaces it wouldn't be long before I lost all clients. There's a lot to be said for de facto monopolies, I suppose. Oh no, there's nothing wrong with the design, just as long as you accept it on it's own terms and don't compare it to anything relevant, and just as long as you give people enough time to understand and accept it … and surrender to it.
    For real … I wouldn't win one single pitch that way.
    Today's threads have in many ways been a thorough reminder of the following quote from the second link I provided:
    Is there an Internet rule yet stating that even the most obviously indefensible mistake will eventually be defended by someone somewhere? Awful marketing efforts get explained as genius viral campaigns, broken features become solutions.
    And whether or not you're able to see my point of view or not is really besides the point too.
    The real point was, and remains to be:
    That for those who receive lots of ads or other external files that may or may not contain spot colors it would be far more useful to be able to set a checkbox to always convert all spots to process when exporting, than the current functionality is (and I'm not suggesting eliminating the current functionality, just change so it's presented like what it really is, and then just let that separate checkbox do what it says) … causing unnecessary manual action on the user's behalf shouldn't be the business of Adobe – preventing it should.
    And here's further reading on the subject of bad Adobe interface design for those who might feel so inclined. ;-)
    Cheers!

  • How do I change the color of font in a fillable form in Adobe Reader? How can I check if the writer of the document has given permission to edit color and not just add text?

    How do I change the color of font in a fillable form in Adobe Reader? How can I check if the writer of the document has given permission to edit color and not just add text? Please help! I'm technologically challenged.

    Most forms (99% or more) are created for simple text input, where you cannot change anything.
    The creator of the form could allow Rich Text input (which allows you to change font, text size, color, etc.), but frankly I have never seen such a form, and I wouldn't know how they look.  But I'm sure they would show some kind of controls to alter the text appearance.

  • When "allow pages to choose their own colors, instead of my selections above" is un-checked in the options menu, I am unable to see images on websites. How do I maintain having the box un-checked and still view images?

    I recently decided to switch the colors around in Firefox. I work in a pretty dark environment and having dark colored text on white or bright backgrounds is rather difficult on my eyes in the dark.
    I switched the background to a dark gray, the text to a light gray and both visited and unvisited links to a light blue. Along with these changes, I unchecked the "allow pages to choose their own colors, instead of my selections above" box.
    After unchecking the box, I am no longer able to view images on many websites. The images all turn gray - as if Firefox has changed their image into part of the background. When I check the box, I am able to see images fine, however, the websites usually revert back to their bright backgrounds with dark text.
    Any help and assistance with this is greatly appreciated!
    Thank you!

    You can use the NoSquint extension to set font sizes (text/page zoom) and text colors on web pages.
    * NoSquint - https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/addon/2592

  • The colors are no longer on my calendar, I have blank boxes where delete and other actions should be, and I can no longer check the little boxes to the left of emails but the star feature does work. How can I fix this?

    The colors denoting my different calendars have disappeared.
    To the right of "MAIL" I have blank boxes.
    When I click on the boxes to the left of in box emails instead of a check mark, there is a straight line on the far left side of the box and the mark disappears as soon as you click on another entry.

    You can control this from Mail Preferences on your computer.  Open Mail, go to Preferences, and select Accounts.
    Go to your MobileMe account and select Mailbox Behaviors.  Next to Trash, select Store Deleted Messages on the Server.

  • How to check HP LaserJet 500 color M551 job log

    Hi Everyone
    I have a new HP LaserJet 500 color M551 set for users, after user print a document to the printer,  I want to know how many sheet it used. In the job log page I can only find who print it, output size, black or color... But I can't check how many sheet the print job used. Is there nay method to check it?

    Thanks for the reply
    I had try the method but it still can't get the info. what I want get is how many sheet(s) the print job used but it didn't show in the job log page. the print job only show following info: 

  • Check box color

    Hello,
    I need to put the background color of a check box in gray, instead of white. If i change his property enabled to no, it will be gray only post query, but i need that he stays always gray (also in enter-query).
    I tried set_item_property,Set_Item_Instance_Property and nothing until now
    Cheers,
    Nuno

    Try adding a SYNCHRONIZE after setting the color.  For example,
    SET_ITEM_PROPERTY('myblock.mycheckbox',BACKGROUND_COLOR, 'r192g192b192');
    SYNCHRONIZE;
    Because you are using an old and unpatched Forms version, the fact that the color is not changing, you may be exposing a bug.  If you want to continue experimenting, I would recommend applying the last patch set for the v10 family.  The terminal patch for Forms 10.1.2 is 10.1.2.3 (MOS Patch ID 5983622)
    http://support.oracle.com

Maybe you are looking for