Who remembers this?
-
It is interesting it’s only the black and blue people who don’t seem to get it and get emotional over it.
Probably bcos the white and gold people are strictly wrong and it's incredibly obvious to black and blue people but for some reason there's a stupid debate because some people are bad at looking at things?
-
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.
Yup. Really you don't even need the color picker, as the two horizontal bars seamlessly connecting the two dresses are there to show the same thing.
I think the most fascinating thing about this example image is that I can trick myself into thinking the dress on the left is gold and white. By zooming all the way in so that I can only see the black portion of the dress inside the box and then squinting, it begins to look gold to me. Then scrolling up slowly, the blue portion comes into frame and looks white. It isn't until I zoom out that the illusion is broken.
I was once able to see the original image as black and blue (though I haven't managed it today unfortunately), and its baffling how large of a difference it is. You'd think its like some bright sky blue or something, but no, its a deep blue like in the image I sent and our eyes are laughing at us.
-
Probably bcos the white and gold people are strictly wrong and it's incredibly obvious to black and blue people but for some reason there's a stupid debate because some people are bad at looking at things?
That take only works if you ignore how visual perception actually works. White and gold viewers aren’t wrong—they’re seeing the same pixel values as everyone else, but their brains interpret the lighting differently. The photo has no clear cues about illumination, so the brain fills in the blanks. Some people assume shadow or cool lighting and perceive the colors as lighter, others assume warm light and see them as darker. Both are valid perceptual outcomes given the ambiguity. But here’s the kicker: the actual pixel values in the image are pale blue and a brownish gold. So in terms of what’s literally in the image, white and gold viewers are actually closer to the raw data, regardless of what color the physical dress is in real life. The idea that black and blue people are just “right” misses that distinction completely. What’s especially funny is how often that group doubles down like they’ve uncovered some grand truth, when in reality, they’re just less able—or less willing—to grasp that perception isn’t about facts, it’s about interpretation. It’s like watching someone shout that a painting is wrong because it’s not a photograph.
-
Just asked my kids (Not around for the first time). One says blue and black/gray and the other said purple and green/gray. I've never known anyone who actually saw it as white and gold. Only heard that people do.
I do, too
-
I found this image to be a really good way to distill the issue down into the two different modes or perception:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_dress#/media/File:Wikipe-tan_wearing_The_Dress_reduced.svg
Oh wild. When I first saw this on lemmy it was white and gold. Then I clicked the image and looked and thought, "yeah, that's what I figured." Then I scrolled up and it was blue and brown. Can see white and gold again. Fun.
-
Ten years? I remember clearly that I argued about this on my friends mailing list
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.
-
That take only works if you ignore how visual perception actually works. White and gold viewers aren’t wrong—they’re seeing the same pixel values as everyone else, but their brains interpret the lighting differently. The photo has no clear cues about illumination, so the brain fills in the blanks. Some people assume shadow or cool lighting and perceive the colors as lighter, others assume warm light and see them as darker. Both are valid perceptual outcomes given the ambiguity. But here’s the kicker: the actual pixel values in the image are pale blue and a brownish gold. So in terms of what’s literally in the image, white and gold viewers are actually closer to the raw data, regardless of what color the physical dress is in real life. The idea that black and blue people are just “right” misses that distinction completely. What’s especially funny is how often that group doubles down like they’ve uncovered some grand truth, when in reality, they’re just less able—or less willing—to grasp that perception isn’t about facts, it’s about interpretation. It’s like watching someone shout that a painting is wrong because it’s not a photograph.
Ig what you're failing to understand is that since I, ykno, interpret the lighting correctly? I know I'm right? And everyone that's wrong is... Bad at looking at things.
If the question were literally referring to the pixel color codes, I wouldn't argue. But the question refers literally to the physical dress.
Can you explain why people see the lighting differently?
-
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.
If theyre the same color, why can i see the black outlines way clearer in the yellow dress w/ blue tint side ?
-
Ig what you're failing to understand is that since I, ykno, interpret the lighting correctly? I know I'm right? And everyone that's wrong is... Bad at looking at things.
If the question were literally referring to the pixel color codes, I wouldn't argue. But the question refers literally to the physical dress.
Can you explain why people see the lighting differently?
It’s not though, it’s about the picture. We don’t have access to the dress only a digital representation which objectively is a very pale blue and brown, not black and blue.
I gave some of the reasoning as to why this happened in my original comment, but given you’ve doubled down on ‘interpreting the lighting correctly’ and that people are just ‘bad at looking at things’ I guess it’s a bit above your pay grade.
-
That's... literally not what this phenominon is about, either. Talk about missing the point.
That is literally what the argument is caused by, adaptive perception to lighting conditions.
-
It’s not though, it’s about the picture. We don’t have access to the dress only a digital representation which objectively is a very pale blue and brown, not black and blue.
I gave some of the reasoning as to why this happened in my original comment, but given you’ve doubled down on ‘interpreting the lighting correctly’ and that people are just ‘bad at looking at things’ I guess it’s a bit above your pay grade.
Nonononono, you are wrong. The question has always been "is this DRESS this color or this color?" NEVER EVER has the question been "Is this PICTURE of the dress this color or this color?
I doubled down on... being correct? I mean. That's what happened. I interpreted the lighting correctly. So... go ahead and argue against that?
What do you mean you gave your reasoning? You're talking about how you explained how some people interpreted the lighting incorrectly because they are bad at looking at things?
-
Just asked my kids (Not around for the first time). One says blue and black/gray and the other said purple and green/gray. I've never known anyone who actually saw it as white and gold. Only heard that people do.
It's white/gold if you recognize that it's lit from behind. So the dress appearing darker is due to there being much less light on it than the stuff behind it.
I can't see it as blue/black because I can't make my brain ignore the fact that it's backlit. But if your brain never recognizes that, then I suppose it would look blue.
-
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?
But you can clearly see that the lighting is bright yellow-white, not blue...
-
It’s not though, it’s about the picture. We don’t have access to the dress only a digital representation which objectively is a very pale blue and brown, not black and blue.
I gave some of the reasoning as to why this happened in my original comment, but given you’ve doubled down on ‘interpreting the lighting correctly’ and that people are just ‘bad at looking at things’ I guess it’s a bit above your pay grade.
Sorry, forgot to clarify in my last post:
How, exactly, is the lighting ambiguous? The entire picture is covered in golden light.
-
Nonononono, you are wrong. The question has always been "is this DRESS this color or this color?" NEVER EVER has the question been "Is this PICTURE of the dress this color or this color?
I doubled down on... being correct? I mean. That's what happened. I interpreted the lighting correctly. So... go ahead and argue against that?
What do you mean you gave your reasoning? You're talking about how you explained how some people interpreted the lighting incorrectly because they are bad at looking at things?
It is a picture of a dress. It’s not a real dress. It’s a
digital representation. Any question posted alongside it is regarding the digital representation obviously as it is not a real dress in front of us.You doubled down on lacking the depth to understand what’s actually going on and why you cannot see the true pixels displayed when others can.
-
That's... literally not what this phenominon is about, either. Talk about missing the point.
It's exactly the point. White fabric will appear blue in blue light, which is why some people see this white dress and think it's blue.
-
Sorry, forgot to clarify in my last post:
How, exactly, is the lighting ambiguous? The entire picture is covered in golden light.
The image has a strong yellowish tone, but there’s no clear source of light, no visible shadows, no specular highlights, and no environmental cues like windows or lamps. The background is a blown-out mess of overexposure, and the lighting direction is totally unclear.
Some people’s brains interpret that yellow cast as warm lighting falling on a blue and black dress. Others interpret it as cool shadow across a white and gold dress. That’s why it’s ambiguous — the image lacks the kind of contextual clues we usually use to judge lighting. What you see as a scene bathed in golden light is your brain choosing one of two plausible explanations and running with it.
If the lighting were actually obvious, this would never have gone viral.
-
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.
But you could use one I think, and then have that colour isolated and then dump it somewhere
-
Oh wild. When I first saw this on lemmy it was white and gold. Then I clicked the image and looked and thought, "yeah, that's what I figured." Then I scrolled up and it was blue and brown. Can see white and gold again. Fun.
I looked at this a few hours back when the sun was shining. Obviously white and gold, no question. Looked at it again just now after the sun went down and the house was darker. It's blue and black. I can't see how it could be white and gold. I'm not sure if this is some joke and I'm being fucked with here, so I've downloaded the image and I'll take another look when the sun's shining again.
-
It is a picture of a dress. It’s not a real dress. It’s a
digital representation. Any question posted alongside it is regarding the digital representation obviously as it is not a real dress in front of us.You doubled down on lacking the depth to understand what’s actually going on and why you cannot see the true pixels displayed when others can.
Yeah, buddy, sorry. You're wrong. The debate was solved when the store selling the dress came out and said it was black and blue. You, and maybe some other people who have particularly literal interpretations of things, may have misunderstood the debate entirely from the beginning. It seems that's the case.
I already established that I wouldn't argue against pixel values on the picture matching white and gold. I believe you.
People that are arguing that they see black and blue DO SEE THE WHITE AND GOLD that is literally present in the picture DUE TO THE EXPOSURE. They just know it's obviously black and blue, because they can look at it and interpret it correctly.
