Who remembers this?
-
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.
-
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.
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.
-
Right, we may not perceive objectively, but there is an objective reality and it is perceivable.
The reality is that this dress is blue and black.
If you see it as white and gold, either there is a lighting issue manipulating your perception or your perception is malformed in the first place.
Your eyes should be automatically accounting for the exposure and you should be perceiving this objective reality correctly. If you aren't, you are objectively wrong, and so is your perception.
Hope that clarifies for you!
Do you realize we could both look at a red surface, both call it "red", but for me it may look like blue looks to you? We would never know, because we grew up pointing at something and calling it red.
You are calling it "malformed perception", but thats exactly my point: ALL perception is malformed. Humans are not capable of perceiving objective reality and the belief that we can is an issue at the root of many of societies problems.
-
This post did not contain any content.
It's strange. I'm wearing sunglasses right now and it looks white and gold but when I take them off it looks blue and black.
-
Woops
I missed that; bit of a sensitive topic atm...
I'm American. You have full permission to shit on us whenever you want. This place fucking sucks.
-
Do you realize we could both look at a red surface, both call it "red", but for me it may look like blue looks to you? We would never know, because we grew up pointing at something and calling it red.
You are calling it "malformed perception", but thats exactly my point: ALL perception is malformed. Humans are not capable of perceiving objective reality and the belief that we can is an issue at the root of many of societies problems.
Right, so why does what you just said matter, exactly?
You do know that we know the scientific reason for why we see what colors, right? And that we can check things to determine what color they are because of that?
So... again... that doesn't matter. There is an objective reality. We might not perceive that reality the same or in an objectively correct way, but we do tend to perceive it in a CONSISTENT way.
The people that are wrong about this aren't wrong because they "see different colors" because of some "subjective perceived reality". That's not how it works. If that were the issue, it would be indiscernible and unknowable. Because we would have no idea that we are seeing different things. People know they're seeing different things, and we can explain why (like I already did. It's lighting). Context is an important part of perceiving, ykno.
