Who remembers this?
-
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:
It's funny how people will keep barking about it even when you slap them in the face with color picker which is mathematical display of the color. There is no "how brain is seeing things". It's literally WHAT THE COLOR IS. To call white with faint blue tint "blue" and what is clearly a "gold" shade can't possibly be black. If photo was heavily manipulated through photo editing or lighting, that doesn't prove anything at all. Or the question was stupid. No one was really asking "what color is the dress", they were asking what colors are on the photo. And photo has no relation to the real dress because of light conditions manipulation or even photo editing.
-
If theyre the same color, why can i see the black outlines way clearer in the yellow dress w/ blue tint side ?
wrote last edited by [email protected]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.
-
But you could use one I think, and then have that colour isolated and then dump it somewhere
You cannot measure perception with a color picker. Eyes + brain is not a measurement instrument.
Just like you cannot measure amount of salt used in a dish with your tongue.
-
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.
It's hard for me to agree it's ambiguous because to me, the lighting is pretty clearly coming from the direction of the camera, since that's how exposure works.
Yeah, so I'm better at looking at things. My brain chose the right solution. Skill issue for white and gold people, sorry.
-
It's hard for me to agree it's ambiguous because to me, the lighting is pretty clearly coming from the direction of the camera, since that's how exposure works.
Yeah, so I'm better at looking at things. My brain chose the right solution. Skill issue for white and gold people, sorry.
The whole reason The Dress became a phenomenon is because there’s just enough visual ambiguity to make multiple interpretations plausible. That doesn’t mean your perception is more accurate — it just means your brain committed quickly to one version and stuck with it. Congrats, but calling it a skill issue only shows a lack of understanding about how perception works. If this were about raw visual ability, neuroscientists wouldn’t still be studying it. You didn’t “solve” anything — you just landed on one of two stable percepts and assumed it was the only correct one. And funnily enough, seeing it as white and gold might actually reflect a system tuned to compensate more for low-light environments, possibly allowing better function in situations where light is limited. So if anything, you might be the one running on default settings.
-
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.
Does it help that you can see the shadows of the sleeves on the body of the dress? There has to be light in front and above for that to happen.
-
The whole reason The Dress became a phenomenon is because there’s just enough visual ambiguity to make multiple interpretations plausible. That doesn’t mean your perception is more accurate — it just means your brain committed quickly to one version and stuck with it. Congrats, but calling it a skill issue only shows a lack of understanding about how perception works. If this were about raw visual ability, neuroscientists wouldn’t still be studying it. You didn’t “solve” anything — you just landed on one of two stable percepts and assumed it was the only correct one. And funnily enough, seeing it as white and gold might actually reflect a system tuned to compensate more for low-light environments, possibly allowing better function in situations where light is limited. So if anything, you might be the one running on default settings.
Raw visual ability is funny. You're a silly guy.
It's a skill issue, sorry.
-
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.
Everyone agrees the physical dress is black and blue. That was never the actual debate. The reason this became a global phenomenon is because the photo is so overexposed and lacking in lighting cues that different people genuinely perceive different colors. It’s not about being literal or mistaken — it’s about how the brain interprets visual ambiguity.
Saying black and blue viewers “see” white and gold but just know better doesn’t line up with the research or lived experience of the people who see it differently. Many white and gold viewers don’t consciously override anything — they see pale blue and brownish gold as stable, consistent colors. And those are close to the actual pixel values. So in terms of what’s present in the image, their perception is just as grounded as anyone else’s.
-
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.
Another fun trick is being able to flip which way you think the ballerina is spinning. I used to be able to do it. Helluva time right now, though.
-
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.
They established that its blue and black. I see white and gold but the actual colour was never the debate.
-
Raw visual ability is funny. You're a silly guy.
It's a skill issue, sorry.
Funny how “visual talent” doesn’t come with reading comprehension. I sense this is important to you because you lack actual skills.
-
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 so fucking white and gold I think there's something wrong with you and your children
-
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 and gold to me
-
Funny how “visual talent” doesn’t come with reading comprehension. I sense this is important to you because you lack actual skills.
Lol, you sense this is important to me? Skill issue.
-
Everyone agrees the physical dress is black and blue. That was never the actual debate. The reason this became a global phenomenon is because the photo is so overexposed and lacking in lighting cues that different people genuinely perceive different colors. It’s not about being literal or mistaken — it’s about how the brain interprets visual ambiguity.
Saying black and blue viewers “see” white and gold but just know better doesn’t line up with the research or lived experience of the people who see it differently. Many white and gold viewers don’t consciously override anything — they see pale blue and brownish gold as stable, consistent colors. And those are close to the actual pixel values. So in terms of what’s present in the image, their perception is just as grounded as anyone else’s.
First two sentences in. You're wrong. When the store owners came out and told everyone the correct colors, the debate ended. Sorry. That's what happened.
Don't need to read the rest of your narrative based on a faulty premise.
Skill issue btw.
-
Lol, you sense this is important to me? Skill issue.
Yes, or you're just really thick and incapable of higher levels of thought and analysis.
-
First two sentences in. You're wrong. When the store owners came out and told everyone the correct colors, the debate ended. Sorry. That's what happened.
Don't need to read the rest of your narrative based on a faulty premise.
Skill issue btw.
That isn't what happened. Your entire life is a skill issue.
-
Yes, or you're just really thick and incapable of higher levels of thought and analysis.
Aw, sorry, I didn't expect you to get so emotional.
-
Aw, sorry, I didn't expect you to get so emotional.
Not emotions, just objectively you are struggling to grasp really basic stuff. Either wilful ignorance or just half daft.
-
That isn't what happened. Your entire life is a skill issue.
Check the wikipedia page ig? That is exactly what happened lmao.
