Who remembers this?
-
This is exactly the thing.
Whatever the dress may be in reality, the photo of it that was circulated was either exposed or twiddled with such that the pixels it's made of are indeed slightly bluish grey trending towards white (i.e. above 50% grey) and tanish browny gold.
That is absolutely not up for debate. Those are the color values of those pixels, end of discussion.
Edit to add: This entire debacle is a fascinating case of people either failing to or refusing to separate the concept of a physical object versus its very inaccurate representation. The photograph of the object is not the object: ce n'est pas une robe.
The people going around in this thread and elsewhere putting people down and calling them "stupid" or whatever else only because they know that the physical dress itself is black and blue based on external information are studiously ignoring the fact that this is not what the photograph of it shows. That's because the photograph is extremely cooked and is not an accurate depiction. The debate only exists at all if one party or the other does not have the complete set of information, and at this point in history now that this stupid meme has been driven into the ground quite thoroughly I should hope that all of us do.
It's true that our brains can and will interpret false color data based on either context or surrounding contrast, and it's possible that somebody deliberately messed with the original image to amplify this effect in the first place. But the fact remains that arguing about what the dress is versus how it's been inaccurately depicted is stupid, and anyone still trying that at this late stage is probably doing so in bad faith.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]The "white" pixels are literally blue. The "black" ones can be considered gold due to the lighting.
-
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.”
What always confused me is, the picture clearly seems to be overexposed, which means the blue/black interpretation should be obvious.
-
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.
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.
-
It kills me that no matter what, it is always white and gold for me, EVEN THOUGH REALITY SAYS OTHERWISE!
Brain defect.
-
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.
*yeah, not yea or nay. It isn't a vote.
-
Not even the brighter version looks white and gold to me. It's so obviously blue and black, y'all are insane.
Right? To be white and gold the dress would need to be in shadow, but it's clearly in light.
-
What always confused me is, the picture clearly seems to be overexposed, which means the blue/black interpretation should be obvious.
I agree. But my wife was so firmly in the white/gold camp that I had to find this (and a better image of the actual dress, which is indeed blue and black) to help us understand one another’s perspective.
-
I'm still convinced this is the biggest troll. It's clearly white and gold
Then you clearly have a brain/eye defect because not only does it look black and blue, but the actual dress in real life is black and blue.
-
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 on last edited by [email protected]Is that the question though? Sure the dress is blue/black but the photo itself is light ass blue (white) and gold.
I dont care about science or the true color. The question is the photo. Included all the color changes and whatever. Call it light blue and gold thats fine but no black.
Take the filter off, yes it's the actual color but thats not the question.
-
No this is exactly incorrect. We do NOT perceive objective reality. All perception is subjective, and then goes through a further filter of interpretation. If someone says something is blue, there is no guarantee they perceive it the same as someone else. On top of societal pressure itself being able to change perception.
This is why in every scientific endeavor we try to take humans out of its as much as possible.
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!
-
This post did not contain any content.
This is why "eye witness testimony" can never be trusted. People with fucked up physiology just tumbling through life and not even realizing that their color wheel is off by magnitudes, and that cilantro is delicious.
-
This post did not contain any content.
I can sort of change it. Probably just my TN monitor though.
-
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 did that in photoshop and it confirned what my eyes saw
-
This dress is black and blue. I am laughing hysterically that any of you think it’s not. Is your eyesight bad in other ways? Honestly asking because mine is really good.
I regularly colour-match clothes as part of my retouching work. My eyes are fine otherwise I wouldn't be trusted with critical color work.
-
This post did not contain any content.
This didn’t “reveal differences in human perception”. Those differences were well known already. What was lacking - and still is, as far as I know - is a good model of human colour perception.
-
This post did not contain any content.
I can't remember the pairs of colors that are supposed to be. Were blue/black and golden/white?
-
Woops
I missed that; bit of a sensitive topic atm...
Why are people downvoting someone for admitting they made a mistake? It takes some courage to do that.
-
Plz sned beans ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
Zuni Gold beans with White Cannellini Beans or Black beans with Nonna Agnes Blue Beans?
-
It appears white/gold to me on it's own, I've never been able to see anything different.
Grabbing this specific image and sampling the colours though; they appear more of a grey/brown colour. I can sorta maybe understand blue, but definitely not black.
This is just using Polish photo editor on android:
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.
-
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.
When you look at the checker shadow illusion, do you see the pixels as identical in color? If not, then obviously there's more to human perception than just the color of the pixel code.
