Who remembers this?
-
Everyone agrees the physical dress is black and blue. That was never the actual debate. The reason this became a global phenomenon is because the photo is so overexposed and lacking in lighting cues that different people genuinely perceive different colors. It’s not about being literal or mistaken — it’s about how the brain interprets visual ambiguity.
Saying black and blue viewers “see” white and gold but just know better doesn’t line up with the research or lived experience of the people who see it differently. Many white and gold viewers don’t consciously override anything — they see pale blue and brownish gold as stable, consistent colors. And those are close to the actual pixel values. So in terms of what’s present in the image, their perception is just as grounded as anyone else’s.
First two sentences in. You're wrong. When the store owners came out and told everyone the correct colors, the debate ended. Sorry. That's what happened.
Don't need to read the rest of your narrative based on a faulty premise.
Skill issue btw.
-
Lol, you sense this is important to me? Skill issue.
Yes, or you're just really thick and incapable of higher levels of thought and analysis.
-
First two sentences in. You're wrong. When the store owners came out and told everyone the correct colors, the debate ended. Sorry. That's what happened.
Don't need to read the rest of your narrative based on a faulty premise.
Skill issue btw.
That isn't what happened. Your entire life is a skill issue.
-
Yes, or you're just really thick and incapable of higher levels of thought and analysis.
Aw, sorry, I didn't expect you to get so emotional.
-
Aw, sorry, I didn't expect you to get so emotional.
Not emotions, just objectively you are struggling to grasp really basic stuff. Either wilful ignorance or just half daft.
-
That isn't what happened. Your entire life is a skill issue.
Check the wikipedia page ig? That is exactly what happened lmao.
-
older than 10 years, more like 12 or 13. I remember arguing about this damn dress at the ad agency I was working at in 2012.
Yeah but 2012 is like 5 years ago, right? Right?
-
Not emotions, just objectively you are struggling to grasp really basic stuff. Either wilful ignorance or just half daft.
Idk, you pretty clearly are and have been using ad hominem attacks.
What was I struggling to grasp again? Which part? The idea that it was ambiguous?
-
Check the wikipedia page ig? That is exactly what happened lmao.
The wikipedia page details how it's been studied for over a decade since, and how it was never 'unknown' so you check the wikpedia page ig
-
Not emotions, just objectively you are struggling to grasp really basic stuff. Either wilful ignorance or just half daft.
Btw, quick note, idk if your perception is just so malformed that you can't tell, but the first mention of "skill issue" was about where I started trolling you. I'm letting you know because you are clearly quite vulnerable to feeding the troll.
-
Idk, you pretty clearly are and have been using ad hominem attacks.
What was I struggling to grasp again? Which part? The idea that it was ambiguous?
wrote last edited by [email protected]You don't have a monopoly on bad faith arguments, ad hom doesnt equal emotional it just means I've disregarded your input as valuable and I'm winding you up.
You struggled to grasp pretty much any of it.
-
Btw, quick note, idk if your perception is just so malformed that you can't tell, but the first mention of "skill issue" was about where I started trolling you. I'm letting you know because you are clearly quite vulnerable to feeding the troll.
Can't kid a kidder wee man.
-
It's so fucking white and gold I think there's something wrong with you and your children
Look at the background. The lighting is a warm yellow. This shifts blue to white and black to gold.
-
This is exactly the thing.
Whatever the dress may be in reality, the photo of it that was circulated was either exposed or twiddled with such that the pixels it's made of are indeed slightly bluish grey trending towards white (i.e. above 50% grey) and tanish browny gold.
That is absolutely not up for debate. Those are the color values of those pixels, end of discussion.
Edit to add: This entire debacle is a fascinating case of people either failing to or refusing to separate the concept of a physical object versus its very inaccurate representation. The photograph of the object is not the object: ce n'est pas une robe.
The people going around in this thread and elsewhere putting people down and calling them "stupid" or whatever else only because they know that the physical dress itself is black and blue based on external information are studiously ignoring the fact that this is not what the photograph of it shows. That's because the photograph is extremely cooked and is not an accurate depiction. The debate only exists at all if one party or the other does not have the complete set of information, and at this point in history now that this stupid meme has been driven into the ground quite thoroughly I should hope that all of us do.
It's true that our brains can and will interpret false color data based on either context or surrounding contrast, and it's possible that somebody deliberately messed with the original image to amplify this effect in the first place. But the fact remains that arguing about what the dress is versus how it's been inaccurately depicted is stupid, and anyone still trying that at this late stage is probably doing so in bad faith.
Earlier today I was sat in a dark room reading this thread, I looked at the picture above and it clearly had blue tones with warm dark grey. The dress was obviously blue/black.
I'm sitting outside in the light now, looking at the same picture on the same phone in the same app and now it's white and gold/brown.
Without going on my pc and colour picking it myself I can't tell what colour the picture really is since my eyes seem all to happy to lie to me about it.
-
The wikipedia page details how it's been studied for over a decade since, and how it was never 'unknown' so you check the wikpedia page ig
The wikipedia page details how it was a viral buzzfeed quiz positing the question "what color is this dress?" The wikipedia page also details how the buzzfeed quiz blew up overnight(feb26)- oh, you're right, I can't find when they announced the color. It was the next day, feb 27th. I just used google to find the old tweet.
So anyway, the wide world did NOT know the color of the dress from the beginning, it went viral overnight without that context at all. Sorry? I don't know why you seem to care so much?
-
You don't have a monopoly on bad faith arguments, ad hom doesnt equal emotional it just means I've disregarded your input as valuable and I'm winding you up.
You struggled to grasp pretty much any of it.
For sure man, you're winding me up...
-
Can't kid a kidder wee man.
Ah man, for sure. Don't worry! Everyone who sees this WILL know how emotionally invested you were. You made probably like 30 comments, after all. Enjoy your day buckaroo!
-
Can't kid a kidder wee man.
It's kinda funny, tho, don't you think? For you to be this mad AND wrong?
-
I've always really liked this explanation image you can find on Wikipedia page for it. Essentially, people who see white and gold are mistaking the lighting to be cold and blue-tinted, rather than warm and yellow-tinted.
The portions inside the boxes are the exact same colors, you can easily check this with a color picker.
wrote last edited by [email protected]I don't understand this, can you explain it?
In the left I see a black and blue dress with a yellow box. The dress inside the box is still black and blue (with yellow tint).
In the right side I see a white and gold dress with a blue. box. Inside the box the dress is white and gold, with a blue tint.
What am i supposed to see here? What is this telling me?
-
But you can clearly see that the lighting is bright yellow-white, not blue...
The yellow background could be lit by another window or a different light source, so one could argue we don't have a good reference to tell. But the point is that the "picture of a thing" is not "the thing" itself, and there is always a possibility that they are different.
