Who remembers this?
-
This post did not contain any content.
It's pale blue and gold, right?
-
Yes, I do remember ten years ago.
This concludes your long term memory exam. Please see the lady at the front desk to schedule your short term exam.
-
It's pale blue and gold, right?
I see blue and gold too, but you're the first other person I've met who does
-
This post did not contain any content.
Its so funny that this meme has sparked the exact debate all over again.
-
Iām with you. This viral moment never made sense to me cuz I can never see anything else even with my wildest imagination.
That's...why it went viral. So many people couldn't see it the other way, and both sides found it hard to believe that the other side was actually being sincere.
-
What always confused me is, the picture clearly seems to be overexposed, which means the blue/black interpretation should be obvious.
It's because we're also very used to seeing photographs of a subject in shade while the background is in full sunlight. If you take a picture of a white and gold dress in the shadow of a patio, with the background all fully lit by bright sunlight, the actual pixels representing white objects in the shade would be that bluish gray tint.
The problem here is that the dress isn't in the shade but those of us who see white and gold simply assume that it is in shade, while black/blue viewers (correctly) assume that it is under the same lighting conditions of the overexposed background.
-
Since we have no context, the dress is white and gold objectively.
The actual physical object photographed is black and blue.
White and gold appear when the brain makes the assumption that the dress falls within a shadow (effectively applying a filter that shifts the white balance towards bluer colors and brightness down significantly compared to direct sunlight). Only in real life, the photographed dress did not fall within a shadow, and instead was affected by a yellowish lens flare, so the subconscious color correction that leads a viewer to assume white and gold was erroneously applied.
I see white and gold. But to claim that it's "objectively" white and gold ignores how the human brain perceives color and ignores that the actual photograph was a blue and black dress.
Why do you assume it's a yellow tint? What if all the objects in the back are simply yellow?
The actual object is blue, the actual photograph is white. They are two separate concepts. We only think it's blue because we were told - how do we even know that's true, have you seen the dress in person? Using a color picker is the only objective solution that doesn't rely on flawed interference.
-
Yeah but 2012 is like 5 years ago, right? Right?
You're thinking of 1998
-
I have always only seen black and blue, even in the light version my brain doesn't make it gold and white. It's strange to me why people perceive this as gold.
Edit this video was the only one to make me see it https://youtu.be/YB36n00NHBw
We'll I watched the other video and I finally saw the blue and black. I've always seen white gold but now I don't. Fucking trippy.
-
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]Part of the reason it can be hard to tell is because we cannot see a source of the ambient light shining onto the part of the dress we see. The reason I see white and gold is because my brain defaults to the back lighting being sunlight and the overhead being shaded by tent. Not uncommon at rennaissance fairs and the like. But if you see this all as in door lighting it's much easier to imagine bright overhead department store lights or something.
So no, no one is stupid for seeing it one way or the other.
-
I swear it was blue and black this morning, but now it's white and gold!
Opposite happened to me, white and gold this morning but black and blue now š¤Æ
-
This is the color picker in the image you replied to. Do you really think the colors on the left are white and the colors on the right are gold?
This person doesn't understand pixels lol. You picked one pixel. Pick 100 of them and average them. It's in the white spectrum with a slight shade of blue hue. If you look at it on the color wheel, it's well within white segment slightly towards the blue. When you zoom out of single pixels, it's white that you get under cool white light. It's still considered white.
As for gold, computer screens do not display gold in specular way how you see it with eyes.When you pick pixels, they will be in range of brown. Again, you don't seem to underetand pixels. And ultimately, this is suppose to be black, remember? Where's the black?
The "after" photos of a dress show dark blue with black lace details because it was not captured in bullshit lighting. Where is that on the picked pixels? Just like years ago we are once again arguing over bullshit doctored/manipulated/bad photo of a dress arguing what color it is. It's beyond stupid and I can't believe people are still this dumb to argue about colors that aren't even there. I don't care how dress actually looks, you showed me the photo of it and you're asking me how the dress looks like on the photo, not in reality. The rest is within the color picker which is mathematical representation of colors that doesn't give a shit how eyes work. And it picks very faint blue and brown (thats perceived by eyes as white and gold). Not dark blue and black.
-
It's pale blue and gold, right?
wrote last edited by [email protected]IIRC, it's white and gold, but the lighting is way oversaturated or otherwise fucked up, making it look blue and black.
-
IIRC, it's white and gold, but the lighting is way oversaturated or otherwise fucked up, making it look blue and black.
it's the other way around. the dress is blue and black. people who are white and gold do so based on an assumption that it's in shadow rather than overexposed.
-
This post did not contain any content.
it was obviously blue and yellow.
-
I see blue and gold too, but you're the first other person I've met who does
Rise up my brother!
-
This post did not contain any content.
10 YEARS AGO?!
-
The lighting of the room is clearly yellow. The black stripes look to be a very glossy material, which when lit with yellow light reflects goldish. There's no way that lighting turns a white dress blue.
What room? It looks like we're looking at the back of an object that's facing out into bright sunlight.
-
It's because we're also very used to seeing photographs of a subject in shade while the background is in full sunlight. If you take a picture of a white and gold dress in the shadow of a patio, with the background all fully lit by bright sunlight, the actual pixels representing white objects in the shade would be that bluish gray tint.
The problem here is that the dress isn't in the shade but those of us who see white and gold simply assume that it is in shade, while black/blue viewers (correctly) assume that it is under the same lighting conditions of the overexposed background.
wrote last edited by [email protected]This thread has been helpful for understanding how others could see it as white and gold; I never realized people were actually seeing it as in shadow even given the context of the rest of the picture.
-
IIRC, it's white and gold, but the lighting is way oversaturated or otherwise fucked up, making it look blue and black.
I thought it was the otherway around. I see White and Gold and I'm pretty sure I was wrong at the time
