Who remembers this?
-
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.
The lighting of the room is clearly yellow.
That's not clear to me. The dress looks like it's in the shade.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Never understood this one, or believed anyone who said they saw black/blue. You can zoom in and colour pick, the colours are measurable and objectively gold and blue-white.
-
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.
It’s more about the colors around it. This image from Wikipedia does a really good job illustrating the effect.
Context is extremely important in identifying color. As Technology Connections tells us, for example, “brown is just orange with context.”
-
But the dress in the photo looks like it's in the shadow so it's a fair assumption that the lighting would be blue-tinted.
How does it look like it's in a shadow? The rest of the photo is over exposed like in bright lights so it's safe to assume that the dress is over exposed too.
-
It kills me that no matter what, it is always white and gold for me, EVEN THOUGH REALITY SAYS OTHERWISE!
wrote last edited by [email protected]Yea i never see an ounce of black on there. That's fucking yellow.
I see blue stripes or white if standing in a shadow. But there is no black.
-
This post did not contain any content.
I see it obviously blue black, but I have some specific accessibility related colour filters on my screen that might influence this.
-
Never understood this one, or believed anyone who said they saw black/blue. You can zoom in and colour pick, the colours are measurable and objectively gold and blue-white.
This isn't the picture they used at the time either, why are we cropping it now?
-
I see it obviously blue black, but I have some specific accessibility related colour filters on my screen that might influence this.
wrote last edited by [email protected]The photo looks different. I see the original as white and gold but this looks blue and black.
Edit: Fuck me, I'm looking at this again at night and it's back to white and gold... I guess my phone is on "night mode" now...
-
This post did not contain any content.
Article with original photo. Frankly, I see it as blue and gold this morning after I just woke up. I know that I've been able to see both of the other views (limited) when I viewed the photo when I was fully awake, but not right now.
-
When i first opened the image, it was undeniably white/gold to me, and I could not trick myself into seeing black/blue. After looking at the HQ image above, now I can not see white/gold anymore.
Edit: After writing this comment, it is back to white/gold.
Had the same happen to me
-
…shortly after, the internet broke people’s brains though addictive feed algorithms and everyone lost their minds. But then Lemmy was born to restore the internet to an early more fun time. Lemmy just hopes that one day it will have its own dress moment.
We don’t need dress. We have beans.
-
Ah, so white and gold folks are, indeed, mistaken.
Thanks!
This has been known for almost as long as the picture has been around. Still doesn't allow me to see it.
-
The lighting of the room is clearly yellow.
That's not clear to me. The dress looks like it's in the shade.
Look at everything to the right of the dress, even to the left. Everything is illuminated with bright, yellowish light.
-
It's not as simple as that. There actually is a human perception element. Take a copy and ask a few people what they see. Even while you are all looking at the exact same thing, people can disagree. It can even happen to you where the colours flip.
Colors do not just magically flip, not outside of gradient variances and medical conditions. This is absurd bs just like this whole "viral" debate where people were arguing over how camera captured the stupid dress. The camera captured it in that stupid way to look entirely different, not my eyes. Even color picker in image editor proves that on the photo of the dress, the gold is gold and the white is so far washed out blue that can easily be declared white. Are you going to claim mathematical tool has wrong perception of color too?
-
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.
if you take a digital photo of the [ ... thing ... ] and post it on the internet as a terribly compressed jpg
That sums up the entirety of the content on a number of popular subs on the R-word site.
Confusing perspective? No. More like confusing JPEG artifacts.
-
See, it always looked to me like blue light (or maybe shadow) around the dress itself, where the only sense it makes to my brain is that the fabric is white.
Whatever is to the right and behind the dress is definitely in bright yellow light.
-
The real dress is actually blue and black, yes, but the illustration tries to show how the exact same colours can look different depending on lighting and context.
In the diagram, the dress on the left is strongly blue and black, while the dress on the right is strongly white and yellow.
And yet the connected parts of the dresses with the "pipes" between them show the exact same colour on one dress can look like a different color on the other. The "pipe" is there so you can follow it with your own eyes from one side to the other and observe that it is indeed the same colour on both sides, despite looking very different when observed as part of the whole image.
The point being, how our brains perceive colour is very situationally dependent, and some people assume a different situation than others, hence the differences in perception.
People tend to believe that vision is absolute, that we all have the same eyes and see the same things, but that's absolutely not true. The dress phenomenon occurred because It's not about what your "eyes" see in absolute terms, it's about what your "brain" does with that information.
wrote last edited by [email protected]another thing that makes it weird is the black lines for the folds of the fabric are much darker/defined on the "blue" side
-
We don’t need dress. We have beans.
Plz sned beans ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
-
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?
wrote last edited by [email protected]I’ll double-check the source of the second photo, but it looks like the original picture is taken from the back and the second is taken from the front.
Add: Yeah, it’s not the EXACT SAME dress worn to the wedding where the original picture came from, but it is the same design by the same maker.
…Also, THIS is the source the second photo came from and today I learned that the dress actually did drive people insane! Holy fuck!
https://sg.news.yahoo.com/man-whose-mother-law-wore-225725928.html
-
Don't forget Laurel and Yani!
I hear pancaked!
