it is mind boggling.
it's been going back and forth for me as well

That's how you know someone has hit advanced levels of taking a poor quality picture.

Sure did. When it keeps getting bumped to the top of every damn newsfeed long after it's been solved and is really not that interesting to begin with, that's really how I feel.

Ironically, I realize I just bumped this to the top again. :derp:

I'm walking away.

Pretty much! I always fuck around with colour temperature to make sure it looks right. All the way back to my first digital camera bought in like 2001

I don't buy this retina bs
probably just comes down to whether your brain interprets the pictures being taken in a shaded, neutral white lighting (w&g) or a very yellowish lighting (b&b)

The picture is so shitty and without any clear background, there is no information we can use in the picture to figure out what lighting condition it was actually taken in...so we arbitrary attribute either one of the 2 lighting condition it could've been in and see 2 different colors dress.

I guess it is like the dancing silhouette and moving train illusions, but for colors instead of movement.

This is the kind of stuff that "blows up on Twitter"? Another reason I'm not on there. Ha!
I honestly only see white and gold. I can't even comprehend blue and black. Is this some sort of mind trick or something?

When I made my first guess I said white/gold because I am so used to seeing photography of snow scenes with the wrong white balance like tungsten making the snow look blue. So my lightroom/photoshop brain was correcting the highlights white balance to white.

http://www.schoolofimaging.ca/images...-balance-1.jpg


If I stop looking at the white and focus on the black/gold, my mind slowly changes to blue/black

white and gold on monitor
bkue and black on phone

I dunno, looks straight forward black and blue...people who don't know that have some serious eye problems lol

I see blue/black on my phone, computer at home and computer at work lol

Saw different colors in different monitors. If anything, this useless issue only reinforces my desires to get a new monitor. Dell must be behind this bullshit because I've been thinking of their U2715H the whole week (Dell UltraSharp 27 Inch QHD Monitor ? U2715H). FML

The correct answer is men prefer the dress off, so we don't care about the colour!

To bring back some internet history, which was is the girl spinning


http://i.imgur.com/YBsKWjo.gif

Try looking at the picture in the sunlight with your phone. Tilt the phone and u will see different colors. Magic.

The actual colour of the dress in OP image is PALE GRAYISH BLUE, and DARK BRONZE.

Except the actual colours of the dress are claiming to be this: BLUE and BLACK.

:fulloffuck:

i love how people claim that the 'actual' colour is blue/black.. but when you look at the photoshop data, it comes out as AzN mentioned above...

When you go to the theaters to watch a movie and it's a dark scene, is the darkness black? The screen is white!

Can you be more elaborate. I don't understand the point you're trying to make.
The colours we see on the white screen will be dictated by the colours the projector is showing...

I am trying to discern how people would define the 'correct' colour; whether it's correct to say what it actually IS, or what it is meant to represent. Note that this is all train of thought and I don't claim to really know anything.

Yes in the photo the raw colour values show the dress is pale blue and bronze. However, a photo is supposed to be a representation of reality; which in reality the dress is blue and black.

In a movie theater, you are technically looking at a white screen. When you look at a B&W photograph of a black object on a white background projected onto a white screen, on the face value, the object is actually white because of the white screen.

However when you ask 'what colour is the object projected onto the screen', would it be more or less correct to say the object is black because you are taking into account context of the entire image as a representation of the actual piece in reality.

Note I use B&W as an example as colour is probably a whole other can of worms which I am not smart enough to comprehend.

The fact that you have to ask that question means you are stuck in one perspective. You cannot see what we are talking about.

The ACTUAL dress is black and blue

The photo is of the black and blue dress in the sunlight.
Everyone that sees black and blue sees the dress in sunlight. The black is faded Cuz of the sun and the blue is lighter Cuz of the sun.

The people that see GOLD AND WHITE literally see the white power ranger gold and white. Like its not "faded" or "bad picture"

It LITERALLY is Gold and white (like the Nike shoes and power ranger posted in this thread)

It is not an argument of what the actual dress is. It is the literal color of the picture.

Did you not read my post? You either see it for what it really is. Or you see gold and white.

I'm not talking about putting a god damn color palette next to the "blacks" and going "oh it's actually a very dark shade of brownish yellow tinge over black"

You KNOW it's black because it's a faded photo.


The people that claim it's white and gold literally fucking see white and gold. Not like a literal technical comparison to some color chart.

It seems that some people cannot switch. And some people once switched cannot switch back.

Sorry dude. You just don't get what we are talking about. Until you see the shift. You'll be in the darkness of subjective ignorance.

Like an old person unable to hear some frequency. Or a color blind person not being able to distinguish a green and brown stripped shirt from just a pure brown shirt. Except those are kinda bad examples because they are physical deficiencies. This dress thing is to do with color shade expectations with surrounding light and background color. Your subconscious for whatever reason favors what you see and feeds it to your conscious mind and you interpret it as some color.

For people that never see a shift, perhaps with more rigid subconscious mind that haven't fully accepted and realised (at the subconscious level) the unreliability of the 5 senses (rely too much on sensual confirmation rather than intuition), their minds are too hard wired into certain color pattern expectations and their mind just cannot elasticize enough to make it shift.

Yes exactly. The shitty photo is a representation of reality. And some people see the representation despite the shitty photo. They have the intuition to know that it's actually a black and blue dress and that the "tint" is from the sunlight and shit camera.

OTHERS however CANNOT see the representation of reality. They think in reality the dress is actually gold and white.

It's not hard to understand people. Even if you don't see it. You should understand what the fuck we are talking about.

That's so weird...

I literally see Gold and tint of blue. And concluded it was actually a white and gold dress, because the dress was taken under low lighting.

Just like how we can determine this car is not blue, yet an image sampler will show you it is blue.
http://www.dyna.co.za/cars/53_Rolls_...Dawn_white.jpg
This blue imo is just about as blue as that blue dress is in the OP image.
Yet we can conclude the dress is blue, but this car is white?

Seeing enough white cars under low lighting or under a shade or such, it's easy to determine how white would look like in this specific scenario.


At this point, I am strongly convinced everyone sees the same shade of
PALE GRAYISH BLUE, and DARK BRONZE.
What I want to know is what visual cues did the people that saw "blue/black" use to determine the dress was blue and black?

I'm having a hard time believing the lighting could consistently change black to gold, but not turn the blue parts yellowish too. I'm not sure where was it stated this was taken under sunlight, because up to this point, I was lead to think the dress was taken from an indoor store based on the background.

If the exposure was messed, I still don't see where the gold would have came from.

Black is a tough colour to manipulate, especially if it's not reflective, such as cloth. So for the black areas to show yellow tint of any sort, there must be a strong yellow spot light (Maybe sunlight does play into this then, so we'll go with that for argument's sake). But then wouldn't blue (a colour that's easier to be manipulated) also show tints of yellow?

I'm not a colour theorist though so maybe strong yellow can washout blue completely just leaving a pale blue colour rather than showing any yellow because of some "spectrum cancellation colour magic".

The colour of the dress is go fuck yourself.

Ionno, I'm using a 1 month new Dell Ultrasharp IPS and it looks gold/white to me.

I'm due for an eye exam anyways. Maybe I'll ask my optometrist what her opinion is lulz