Who remembers this?
-
If anything, I'm more interested in how THAT color is being interpreted than the dress itself. Does it become shade to people because they perceive it relative to the dress? Because, I mean, we know that it is factually light. So how are people perceiving it to be the absence of light? Can you explain that bit?
The brain doesn’t just read raw brightness; it interprets that brightness in relation to what it thinks is going on in the scene.
So when someone sees the dress as white and gold, they’re usually assuming the scene is lit by cool, natural light — like sunlight or shade. That makes the brain treat the lighter areas as a white-ish or light blue material under shadow. The darker areas (what you see as black) become gold or brown, because the brain thinks it’s seeing lighter fabric catching less light.
You, on the other hand, are likely interpreting the lighting as warm and direct — maybe indoor, overexposed lighting. So your brain treats the pale pixels not as light-colored fabric, but as light reflecting off a darker blue surface. The same with the black: it’s being “lightened” by the glare which changes the pixel representation to gold, but you interpret it as black under strong light, not gold.
-
Looks like a sunny background and that the dress is in the shade
So the idea is that the dress is, what, covered in an exactly dress shaped and sized amount of shade? Or else why wouldn't we see shade anywhere else?
-
This post did not contain any content.
Blue and gold to me
-
That we’re curious problem solvers?
Anyway, science has determined that my way is most based
A study carried out by Schlaffke et al. reported that individuals who saw the dress as white and gold showed increased activity in the frontal and parietal regions of the brain. These areas are thought to be critical in higher cognition activities such as top-down modulation in visual perception
Speak for yourself. I'm a solvem probler.
-
That would be because the outlines themselves are not the same colors, just the blue/white and black/yellow sections. Here's an image I quickly edited with the outlines and skin removed, so you can see just how much an effect they have on the image. Both dresses still look normal, but they no longer look like completely different colors when compared together this way.
(edit): And here's the same image with the outer boxes removed, to show how much the lighting is affecting things, where one of the dresses just looks completely wrong to me now.
I never understood this concept until you made the outlines the same. That's the tip i needed to get over the edge. Thanks!
-
The fact that the real color wasn't widespread knowledge from the get go. 🥱🥱
It was though, the origin got withheld for a day when it went viral but it's been going viral for years now and the discussion continues so it's a strange hill to die on. 99% of discussions about this image have occured when the physical dresses colours were known.
-
It was though, the origin got withheld for a day when it went viral but it's been going viral for years now and the discussion continues so it's a strange hill to die on. 99% of discussions about this image have occured when the physical dresses colours were known.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Debate vs discussion semantics.
Debate regards the color.
Discussion regards the overall cultural effect, studies in neuroscience, etc
-
So the idea is that the dress is, what, covered in an exactly dress shaped and sized amount of shade? Or else why wouldn't we see shade anywhere else?
Because shade works in 3D and it's not clear how far away the background is from this picture. But yes, 'dress shaped and size amounts of shade' exist; trees, could be on a shaded balcony, etc.
-
I don't understand this, can you explain it?
In the left I see a black and blue dress with a yellow box. The dress inside the box is still black and blue (with yellow tint).
In the right side I see a white and gold dress with a blue. box. Inside the box the dress is white and gold, with a blue tint.
What am i supposed to see here? What is this telling me?
wrote last edited by [email protected]The dress inside the [left] box is still black and blue (with yellow tint). Inside the [right] box the dress is white and gold, with a blue tint.
The black and yellow colors inside the boxes are actually the exact same color, and the same goes for the blue and white colors inside the boxes (which is what the seamless bars connecting them is there to demonstrate). But they look completely different, right? The picture is showing us two different ways the exact same colors can be interpreted differently depending on the context surrounding it.
If you go to my profile and look at my comment before this one, I posted two slightly edited versions of the image that better show how they're the exact same color.
The way this connects to the original image of the dress, is that some people see a gold and white dress because they think the dress is in blue-tinted lighting, as though they were standing in shade. People who see an overexposed image with a bright yellow tint, on the other hand, will likely see a blue and black dress. I couldn't tell you why it happens, but it's the way our brains perceive the lighting that's doing it.
-
Debate vs discussion semantics.
Debate regards the color.
Discussion regards the overall cultural effect, studies in neuroscience, etc
If you're going to move the goal posts you usally need a segue to be coherent- what?
But yes your arguments lack understanding in those areas too.
-
Because shade works in 3D and it's not clear how far away the background is from this picture. But yes, 'dress shaped and size amounts of shade' exist; trees, could be on a shaded balcony, etc.
Maybe I'm just an elevated being but I can clearly tell that the righthand side is a mirror on a wall and that the tan below it is where the floor meets the wall. Because of that, I can roughly make out the angle and know that we should be seeing some shade on the side if any existed in the first place.
Does that make sense?
-
This post did not contain any content.
I stuck my foot in my mouth about this dress. It was about a year later, and I didn't realize it had been proven to be black and blue, and I said something snarky when someone I liked said it was black and blue. I was so sure it was gold and white, I made an ass of myself.
-
On my phone the background of Lemmy (not the photo) is black. And what is clearly gold in the photos doesn't look anything like black.
I know the dress is blue and black and that's what pisses me off. I can't even see blue and black if I try.
I recall seeing pictures of the dress in other light that make it obvious, and when you compare them next to each other i can see what's going on, but yeah by default my eyes 100% see white/gold here.
-
If you're going to move the goal posts you usally need a segue to be coherent- what?
But yes your arguments lack understanding in those areas too.
Which goalpost did I move?
-
Speak for yourself. I'm a solvem probler.
clearly some problems need to be taken from behind
-
If you're going to move the goal posts you usally need a segue to be coherent- what?
But yes your arguments lack understanding in those areas too.
My arguments haven't even touched on those areas
can you stop being annoying? I'm not gonna fall for your troll bait, so if you keep being annoying, I'll just block you lmao. -
This post did not contain any content.
-
This post did not contain any content.wrote last edited by [email protected]
Here's a pretty good Slate article on this dress, and how important this image became:
https://slate.com/technology/2017/04/heres-why-people-saw-the-dress-differently.html
When I look at the image attached to this post, I can't see anything but white and gold, as I always have. This, in spite of now knowing it's black and blue.
-
Maybe I'm just an elevated being but I can clearly tell that the righthand side is a mirror on a wall and that the tan below it is where the floor meets the wall. Because of that, I can roughly make out the angle and know that we should be seeing some shade on the side if any existed in the first place.
Does that make sense?
No because it's your subconscious, otherwise you'd have no problem understanding why it's was ambigious. (Same applies for elevated beings - they can grasp differences in human colour perception).
And either way, even if your assumptions were true you still don't know the angle of the sun, potential coverings, etc. You can't predict the shade without that info so the logical choice would be to use the colours the pixels display.
-
Blue and gold to me
I’ve never seen even a hint of gold in this image. It’s always been blue and black to me
