Who remembers this?
-
Left: blue and black.
Middle: light blue and black.
Right: dark blue and black.The dress is blue and black. It will never be white or gold. The lighting or saturation doesn't matter.
Well the pixels themselves are white and gold so…
-
You can literally sample the rgb values and see it's blue and black
Edit: am I part of the joke here??? It's clearly blue and black...
Color is created in the brain, not in the pixel values.
Pixel values often have no correlation to the color that's produced in the brain. -
I still think the white and gold people are trolling.
Same. But now after all these years, there are enough people in here that are pedants/trolls and flatly saying they can only see white and gold.
It makes me question my own abilities. Sure, I see the dress for what it actually is, but am I lacking the ability to trick my brain into seeing an illusion? Is that a lack of something like imagination? Am I broken?
-
Ah, so white and gold folks are, indeed, mistaken.
Thanks!
Incorrect. It is impossible to deduce the "real" color from the photo, both sets are true.
The photo is simply bistable.
You can argue that "the real dress bla bla bla", but nobody's looking at the real dress and everyone's looking at the photo.
-
The "white" pixels are literally blue. The "black" ones can be considered gold due to the lighting.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Yes a very light blue, nobody is seeing brilliant white. But on a colour slider it’s much closer to white than the ‘true’ dark blue of the dress. If you sample the sleeve or whatever that is hanging over it’ll be even closer to pure white.
-
As in using the colour picker on the image and finding the corresponding code? That's actually an explanation that I can get behind. Classic example of trust your instrument.
I see the dress as gold and white, no matter ehow hard I try to see the other side of the coin.
Nope. Color cannot be measured, it is created in the brain. Pickers show pixel values (stimulus) and often don't correlate to the experienced color.
-
They're not stupid, their visual cortex just lacks the ability to calibrate to context. You can see in the picture that the scene is very brightly lit. If your visual cortex is in working order, you'll adjust your perception of the colours. The picture reveals that some people struggle to do that.
fMRI studies show that white-and-gold perceivers exhibit more activity in frontal and parietal brain regions, suggesting that their interpretation involves more top-down processing. This means they are more, not less, engaged in contextual interpretation.
Some differences may relate to physiological traits like macular pigment density, which affects how much blue light is absorbed before reaching the retina. People with higher density tend to see white and gold
Color perception is not only about the visual cortex’s function but about the image’s properties and the brain’s inferential processes. You’d know this if you weren’t a dumb blue-n-black’er
-
And what everyone seemed to omit: the reality of peoples' wildly uncalibrated monitors/phone screens.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Properly calibrated screen for graphic design here, multiple mobile devices. Never any major variance unless it’s a different image.
-
The camera captured it in that stupid way to look entirely different, not my eyes.
It is clearly blue and black on this photo.
Photoshop's color picker disagrees with you...
-
Depends on whether I zoom in so the color fills the screen or not. This doesn't change the color values that appear on the screen.
It sounds like you're agreeing with me that color perception relies on context, not just the color code of the pixel on the screen.
-
Funny, I see black and blue, of course the "black" part looks like gold but I think it's because of the lighting and the actual color is dark gray
Sounds like you see blue and gold, which is the third option <10% pick
-
You never understood it because you are wrong. If you actually *color pick you will see that it is blue and black. Not only are you eyes/brain incorrect, but the original dress is actually blue and black.
I love how people keep saying this without actually picking the colours. There’s no black pixels on there at all.
-
Photoshop's color picker disagrees with you...
Are you blind?
-
ITT: people telling other people they're trolling rather than accepting that humans can perceive reality differently, and the own perception is never objective.
It is interesting it’s only the black and blue people who don’t seem to get it and get emotional over it.
-
The point has never been about the actual pixel color codes. It's about how human perception doesn't follow those objective metrics.
Distilled down, we perceive color and brightness in comparison to the surrounding scene. The checker shadow illusion is a clear example of the same color looking different.
So the color perception on the dress depends on how the brain decides to color correct the white balance of the scene.
I find it easy to switch back and forth between the two color combinations: If I assume that the scene is in full sun, then the dress looks blue and black. If I assume that it's in the shade, but with a brightly-lit background, then it looks white and gold.
-
fMRI studies show that white-and-gold perceivers exhibit more activity in frontal and parietal brain regions, suggesting that their interpretation involves more top-down processing. This means they are more, not less, engaged in contextual interpretation.
Some differences may relate to physiological traits like macular pigment density, which affects how much blue light is absorbed before reaching the retina. People with higher density tend to see white and gold
Color perception is not only about the visual cortex’s function but about the image’s properties and the brain’s inferential processes. You’d know this if you weren’t a dumb blue-n-black’er
How come the gold and whiters are simultaneously claiming they use more top down processing, AND that the pixels are white and gold? Looking at the pixel colour is bottom up processing.
If the dress is actually blue and black, how is doing more contextual processing supposed to get you a less accurate perception? Imagine if it was a snake and you needed to tell what colour it was so you'd know if it's going to bite you. If your perception of the snake's colour changes depending on the lighting, you're going to die.
The correct interpretation of that study is that you white and golders are doing 10,000 calculations per second and they're all wrong... Or, you know, the BOLD activation was in inhibitory pathways.
-
I love the way everyone was saying it was white and gold.
Until the science came out.
And everyone claimed to have always seen blue and black.
What science lol.
The pixels are light blue and gold.
The dress itself is dark blue and black.
But the pixels side with the white and gold team. They are seeing the pixels as they appear. If you see blue and black your subconscious is over-riding the objective reality of the pixels (and guessing correctly what colours the original dress is).
-
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?
That's... literally not what this phenominon is about, either. Talk about missing the point.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Can't believe it's been 10 years. I'm getting old, and I'm not even 40.
-
I remember seeing different colors on different screens, so I think part of the perception difference are the saturation and brightness settings of your screen
It bothers me how far I had to dig for someone saying this. Obviously this isn’t some deep insight on how people see colors, we are literally not looking at the same washed out photo because we all have different devices with different settings.
This is like those math problems people argue about because someone purposefully wrote it ambiguously. Manufactured problems.
