Who remembers this?
-
No, two people can be looking at the same screen and perceive it differently.
Yes I know, I'm not denying that
-
I still don’t see either. It looks blue and gold to me
THANK YOU
This is the first time I've seen this take upvoted.
-
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]Yeah, this is the best explanation for why this 'controvesy' happened.
Certain background lighting conditions and colors can significantly alter the color and luminance of certain objects in that lighting environment, which otherwise, in less extreme lighting environments, look different.
Even just understanding basic color theory can show you how to make a color pallette out of either mutually complimentary colors, or highly contrasting colors... and how humans largely, (though apparently to differing extents and by different means), interpret a total color space by comparing and contrasting the colors within that space to each other, as opposed to against some objective reference point of all possible colors.
The other part of this explanation is that...
People were not talking about the same image.
Someone would argue one way, another person argues another way, and then someone else would do some kind of photoshop job to argue for one side, and their explanation and reasoning and justification would get lost, and ok now you have multiple images spreading around and being argued over by the same population that would...
... in 5 years, essentially start a civil war over the idea of whether or not it makes sense to wear a mask during an epidemic of a virus transmitted in the aerosolized spittle from sneezes, coughs, and even just breathing.
But yeah, when this was an ongoing thing, I'd have multiple different people in different camps... sending me actually different images, and it took a while to figure out which one was the actual original origin image.
Which of course I had to do on my own, but critical thinking and basic research skills, an impulse to verify the base assumptions of a claim or argument... many people do not know how to do this, or only selectively do it with things that challenge their pre-existing notions.
-
This post did not contain any content.
10 years? No way
-
am I part of the joke here??? It's clearly blue and black...
The objective fact is…it is a blue and black dress. Other photos of the same dress show that.
But I cannot, for the life of me, see how anyone can possibly get that from this photo. Sample the RGB values all you want and it clearly is not black in this photo. The exposure and white balance have messed around with it so much it is incomprehensible to me how anyone can see it as blue and black.
wrote last edited by [email protected]I dunno. It’s clearly a blue and black dress in a washed-out photo.
I guess I’m just used to seeing washed-out photos, and mentally adjusting the “whitepoint/exposure” (I’m not a photographer) in my brain or whatever.
I have washed out Polaroids from my childhood, so. I don’t think there’s any great mystery here.
-
Yeah, this is the best explanation for why this 'controvesy' happened.
Certain background lighting conditions and colors can significantly alter the color and luminance of certain objects in that lighting environment, which otherwise, in less extreme lighting environments, look different.
Even just understanding basic color theory can show you how to make a color pallette out of either mutually complimentary colors, or highly contrasting colors... and how humans largely, (though apparently to differing extents and by different means), interpret a total color space by comparing and contrasting the colors within that space to each other, as opposed to against some objective reference point of all possible colors.
The other part of this explanation is that...
People were not talking about the same image.
Someone would argue one way, another person argues another way, and then someone else would do some kind of photoshop job to argue for one side, and their explanation and reasoning and justification would get lost, and ok now you have multiple images spreading around and being argued over by the same population that would...
... in 5 years, essentially start a civil war over the idea of whether or not it makes sense to wear a mask during an epidemic of a virus transmitted in the aerosolized spittle from sneezes, coughs, and even just breathing.
But yeah, when this was an ongoing thing, I'd have multiple different people in different camps... sending me actually different images, and it took a while to figure out which one was the actual original origin image.
Which of course I had to do on my own, but critical thinking and basic research skills, an impulse to verify the base assumptions of a claim or argument... many people do not know how to do this, or only selectively do it with things that challenge their pre-existing notions.
Yeah that would never happen a war. Imagine of 3 groups of people worshipped the same God, just prayed to him on the floor, to a wall, and to the ceiling.- I'm sure they would get along and be super harmonious.
-
This post did not contain any content.
It kills me that no matter what, it is always white and gold for me, EVEN THOUGH REALITY SAYS OTHERWISE!
-
This post did not contain any content.
ARE YOU FR? WHO REMEMBERES THIS? IS THIS A SARCASTIC POST??? SAY SIKE OP
-
Because no one has posted the other photos:
And this is a photo of the same dress taken under proper lighting:
The second photo is supposed to be the same dress? Looks like an homage, aka knock-off attempt to me. What happened to the shoulders?
-
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.
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.
-
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.
Ah, so white and gold folks are, indeed, mistaken.
Thanks!
-
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.
Very interesting. I wonder how big the effect of culture is on how people perceive this situation
-
I still don’t see either. It looks blue and gold to me
Same. Initially white and gold, but now mostly blue and gold, although if I stare at it I can make it change back and forth.
-
Not even the brighter version looks white and gold to me. It's so obviously blue and black, y'all are insane.
Same, I see light blue and still black
-
Not even the brighter version looks white and gold to me. It's so obviously blue and black, y'all are insane.
I'm the opposite, the OG photo reads white and gold no matter what edits I see. Even after seeing the dress in proper light the OG is still white and gold.
-
This post did not contain any content.
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.
-
This post did not contain any content.wrote last edited by [email protected]
I never really understood the debate. In reality, if you were standing in front of the dress it is black and blue. Now, if you take a digital photo of the dress and post it on the internet as a terribly compressed jpg, with weird white balancing, and brightness/contrast turned up and down it is gold and white. The debate isn't really about the reality of the color of the dress but the reality of a badly edited photo.
-
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.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Fun fact: I can see both.
Some times when I look at it it’s blue and black. Some times when I look at it it’s white and gold. I can make them flip back and forth.
Altering perception is cool.
-
Because no one has posted the other photos:
And this is a photo of the same dress taken under proper lighting:
Even with my phone cranked all the way up it still looks blue to me. I've never been able to see the white and gold version people claim exists.
-
This post did not contain any content.
I've only ever seen it as blue and black. I can't force it the other way like I could with Laurel and Yani. Y'all seeing white and gold astound me.
