Who remembers this?
-
This post did not contain any content.
Thants so cool i finally got to see both color version and how my brain blends between them.
For anyone wondering how, I am in a dark room with the phone (darkmode lemmy) and it was looking white gold to me.
But when I squish my eyes to darken the incoming screen light and blocking of the right light background with my thumb I could make it fade into blue with black stripes. -
You missed the whole point. If I take a white dress and then shine a blue lamp on it, then take a photo.The pixels will be 100% blue, but would that mean the dress itself is blue?
If I showed you a picture of a green surface, and asked you what color it is, would you say that it's white and that there's probably green light shining on it?
-
I'm usually pretty good at shifting between the two ways to perceive optical illusions. But for this one I cannot see anything but white and gold. Even knowing that it's actually blue and black, I still see it as that.
Having seen (briefly) what you see, I get it.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Always saw it as white/gold first but after a few seconds I perceive it as blue/black and then it stays that way.
-
The claim mixes up how perception works and what people actually mean when they talk about top-down processing. White and gold viewers aren’t saying the pixels are literally white and gold—they’re saying the colors they perceive match most closely with that label, especially when those were the only options given. Many of them describe seeing pale blue and brown, which are the actual pixel values. That’s not bottom-up processing in the strict sense, because even that perception is shaped by how the brain interprets the image based on assumed lighting. You don’t just see wavelengths—you see surfaces under conditions your brain is constantly estimating. The dress image is ambiguous, so different people lock into different lighting models early in the process, and that influences what the colors look like. The snake example doesn’t hold up either. If the lighting changes and your perception doesn’t adjust, that’s when you’re more likely to get the snake’s color wrong. Contextual correction helps you survive, it doesn’t kill you. As for the brain scan data, higher activity in certain areas means more cognitive involvement, not necessarily error. There’s no evidence those areas were just shutting things down. The image is unstable, people resolve it differently, and that difference shows up in brain activity.
White and gold viewers aren’t saying the pixels are literally white and gold—they’re saying the colors they perceive match most closely with that label
I think all of the white-gold people are really condescending, explaining how their perception is correct and how blue-black people don't understand the image. Also, if they explain how the image looks white-gold enough, that the blue-black people will be wrong.
-
Were taking about the pixels on the screen, not the real dress though, the colors on screen are what you see and theyre gold and blue-white
Show me the white here. I thought gold was like a yellow orange, not a brown-grey color
-
This post did not contain any content.
Were people just stupid or something and not capable of knowing when the ambient light and camera is affecting the colour of the image?
WTF is this about people getting exact pixel colours?! The question is what colour is the dress, not the colour of the picture in which the dress is depicted!
Using pixel colour to determine the colour of a dress is like saying Martin Luther King had grey skin because the photo he's depicted in is in black and white!
-
White and gold viewers aren’t saying the pixels are literally white and gold—they’re saying the colors they perceive match most closely with that label
I think all of the white-gold people are really condescending, explaining how their perception is correct and how blue-black people don't understand the image. Also, if they explain how the image looks white-gold enough, that the blue-black people will be wrong.
explaining how their perception is correct and how blue-black people don't understand the image.
Well the ones that do understand the image by definition won't need it explained. There's no 'correct', if we're talking pixels/digital representation, it's white-gold (or light-blue and brown if we're being pedantic), if we're talking about what the physical dress is, it's blue and black.
If it were a white and gold dress and the light was reversed to shadow it'd likely be the other way about; some people would interpret it as the pixels displayed (blue and black), and others would subconsciously revert it to white and gold.
-
This post did not contain any content.
I still see both colors alternatingly.
-
Were people just stupid or something and not capable of knowing when the ambient light and camera is affecting the colour of the image?
WTF is this about people getting exact pixel colours?! The question is what colour is the dress, not the colour of the picture in which the dress is depicted!
Using pixel colour to determine the colour of a dress is like saying Martin Luther King had grey skin because the photo he's depicted in is in black and white!
So what color was his skin?
-
Were people just stupid or something and not capable of knowing when the ambient light and camera is affecting the colour of the image?
WTF is this about people getting exact pixel colours?! The question is what colour is the dress, not the colour of the picture in which the dress is depicted!
Using pixel colour to determine the colour of a dress is like saying Martin Luther King had grey skin because the photo he's depicted in is in black and white!
People were distributing edited versions of the dress image just to fuck with people. I'm convinced that trolling was the root of the entire "debate".
-
You can sample the colours and see it’s white with a very light blue tinge and gold.
People who see it as blue and black are (correctly in this case) auto-correcting for the yellow light as the dress itself is black and blue.
Whereas people who see it as white and gold are (subconsciously) assuming a blue shadow and seeing the pixels as they’re displayed.
wrote last edited by [email protected]You selected the brightest highlights on the dress. I selected more average colors here.
I also included WHITE AND GOLD next to the selected colors, so you can see what they actually look like. Are you really saying that blue is white and brown-grey is gold?
-
This post did not contain any content.
I only see white gold
-
explaining how their perception is correct and how blue-black people don't understand the image.
Well the ones that do understand the image by definition won't need it explained. There's no 'correct', if we're talking pixels/digital representation, it's white-gold (or light-blue and brown if we're being pedantic), if we're talking about what the physical dress is, it's blue and black.
If it were a white and gold dress and the light was reversed to shadow it'd likely be the other way about; some people would interpret it as the pixels displayed (blue and black), and others would subconsciously revert it to white and gold.
wrote last edited by [email protected]You're saying it's actually white-gold?
Do you think the color on the left is actually white? White is on the right here, for your reference:
In the colors below, you think they are the same color? Brown is not the same color as gold
If you were tasked with painting something gold, would you paint it brown instead?
-
This post did not contain any content.
The blue of the dress is pretty obvious, the black details are a different, golden hue due to ambient light. I "know" it's black, but it looks dark gold
-
This post did not contain any content.
I swear it was blue and black this morning, but now it's white and gold!
-
On my phone the background of Lemmy (not the photo) is black. And what is clearly gold in the photos doesn't look anything like black.
I know the dress is blue and black and that's what pisses me off. I can't even see blue and black if I try.
I'm sitting here with my professor Mom, and her award winning teacher friend who both see gold and white while I see very clearly black and blue. I tried zooming in on specific areas to show them just the shoulder, that I see as blue. They said they still saw white. Then I went to a black area, and I'll be fucking damned if I didn't see some definite gold! The majority of it was black, but there is definitely gold in that picture if you zoom in.
-
You're saying it's actually white-gold?
Do you think the color on the left is actually white? White is on the right here, for your reference:In the colors below, you think they are the same color? Brown is not the same color as gold
If you were tasked with painting something gold, would you paint it brown instead?
No it’s a very light blue that looks like white+shadow.
The gold is a browny gold but the options were ‘white and gold’ or ‘blue and black’
https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/pictrs/image/1af486db-deb1-44da-8d48-6ad5b5833713.webp
I see these exact pixels for the whole dress. So no black, and no blue like the original physical dress.
-
You selected the brightest highlights on the dress. I selected more average colors here.
I also included WHITE AND GOLD next to the selected colors, so you can see what they actually look like. Are you really saying that blue is white and brown-grey is gold?Well you would select the brightest bit to get an idea of the bit that was least impacted by the shadow.
But yes still closer to white and gold than (dark) blue and black
-
Were people just stupid or something and not capable of knowing when the ambient light and camera is affecting the colour of the image?
WTF is this about people getting exact pixel colours?! The question is what colour is the dress, not the colour of the picture in which the dress is depicted!
Using pixel colour to determine the colour of a dress is like saying Martin Luther King had grey skin because the photo he's depicted in is in black and white!
wrote last edited by [email protected]Nah, it's actually possible to see each version. There are actually three: white and gold, blue and black, blue and brown. It's like those "magic eye puzzles". It just kinda pops into place when it happens. Depending on the lighting in your room and what colors your eyes have recently been looking at, your eyes will see it differently. It has partly to do with how what you "see" is a hodgepodge of signals all being processed into one "image" and the way we process color.
You are correct tho, objectively the image is a specific RGB value and has a defined "color". That whole divergence between what it is and what it appears to be is the very subject of all those research papers.
I believe one of the ways to easily defeat this trick is to put the dress on a person. The skin tone will act as a known reference point for the rest.
