Support NeoGAF

[StopMakingSense]

I'm aware of warm and cool lighting, but it'd have to be really intense to make something white look that blue. You'd basically need a special blue spotlight which is not something you'd assume in a photo like that.

Nah, it seems like on the edge of what you could get with photo balanced for warm light with shadowed daylight (which is even cooler than direct daylight). That mixed with a shitty cell camera, its well in the realm of plausibility, at least mentally. Also in the interpretation, the cell cam has greatly underexposed the dress, which would amplify the appearance of the saturation of the blue. ( I am a photographer )

 

[hachi]

This has probably been posted at some point, but the standard matter of chromatic adaptation can be illustrated in other photos (although the dress is unique for straddling a line at which some people, at some times, are interpreting the picture's light balance differently).

The banner areas on the left are entirely gray -- as indicated -- but you'll perceive them as red, by automatically correcting for the blue lighting. Now if similarly tinted lighting were to be misperceived in a photo (either by not seeing it and not adjusting for it, or adjusting when it isn't there), you'd get the result of seeing those same colors differently.

 

[Muffdraul]

The clothing in the bottom left of OP's pic is black and white. Its still faded blue and gold too me while looking at the black clothing as well. The mod abuse pic is black and blue for me.

The "main" dress looked white and gold under shadow to me. But after I focused on the dress in the background, which is clearly and definitely black and white, my brain couldn't see the main dress as white anymore and it's been blue to my eye ever since. Still struggling to see the black though. For me it went from gold under shadow to a brown. Not even that dark of a brown, nowhere near what I would call black.

 

[Fusebox]

I'm aware of warm and cool lighting, but it'd have to be really intense to make something white look that blue. You'd basically need a special blue spotlight which is not something you'd assume in a photo like that.

Not really, someone was posting a pic of the white house with a big blue-looking section on it in this thread yesterday, no blue spotlights.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

Still black and blue in both images.

I used to paint, of the artistic variety, a lot, so color theory and how light affect color is also something I have a lot knowledge of.

I can see the tinges of color, though. My brain still processes blue and black.

it should be black & blue. i thought you were seeing white & gold.

 

[Prax]

These are the 2 interpretations I see:

The first is corrected for blue lighting (shade).
The second is corrected for yellow lighting.
What you perceive depends on what lighting you think it is.
Apparently the second is the correct one because the dress isn't in the shadow but is actually lit by a yellow spotlight.

Even the one corrected for blue lighting (which is dead wrong anyway. Where would blue lighting come from in that context anyway! lol), the dress still comes out looking grey blue and brown OR overexposed yellow light blue and black (or fadey black) to me. You would have to actually fiddle with it way more and remove much more blue and add more yellow for me to ever believe it's supposed to be white and gold.

 

[phisheep]

I see white/gold. Unequivocally. Almost always.

My wife, son and daughter see blue/black, equally unequivocally and every time. Naturally my son thinks I am lying through my teeth (I'm not).

Just a few times over the last couple of hours I've seen it in blue/black, particularly with changes in the ambient light around me (it makes no difference whether f.lux is on or off, but it does make a difference if I come from a room with halogen lighting - when I'm more likely to see blue/black - or from one with flourescent lights, which tends to my default of white/gold.

There's clearly some individual differences at play here, but it is hard to disentangle them from local backgound lighting.

More research needed.

 

[Lord Error]

You use the word precise, yet you follow on with an uncertainty.

He asked me how do I explain that, by quoting my post in which I offered the very same explanation. My 'precisely' was referring to the fact that I've had that explanation in the post he quoted, not in the level of my certainty about it.

These are the 2 interpretations I see:

The first is corrected for blue lighting (shade).
The second is corrected for yellow lighting.
What you perceive depends on what lighting you think it is.
Apparently the second is the correct one because the dress isn't in the shadow but is actually lit by a yellow spotlight.

I just checked, and removing blue tinge from the photo doesn't get you something that looks like the first image. If you do that, you just get something that looks black/gray, and further color manipulation is required to get the darker color look more like gold (which in process absolutely destroys everything else on the photo). However, removing yellow from the image I think makes it unmistakably obvious that the dress must be black/blue, as it removes the 'gold' ambiguity from the black color (and it also makes whites on the photo look proper white).

Even the one corrected for blue lighting (which is dead wrong anyway. Where would blue lighting come from in that context anyway! lol), the dress still comes out looking grey blue and brown OR overexposed yellow light blue and black (or fadey black) to me. You would have to actually fiddle with it way more and remove much more blue and add more yellow for me to ever believe it's supposed to be white and gold.

Yep, exactly what I had to do.

 

[Flo_Evans]

Can anyone produce a single pic of a white and gold dress with enough blue shadow cast to make it look like that in the photo?

 

[Red]

Can anyone produce a single pic of a white and gold dress with enough blue shadow cast to make it look like that in the photo?

Look like what?

 

[Fusebox]

Can anyone produce a single pic of a white and gold dress with enough blue shadow cast to make it look like that in the photo?

Here's a similar effect:

 

[Prax]

Can anyone produce a single pic of a white and gold dress with enough blue shadow cast to make it look like that in the photo?

I'd think you'd need a blue spotlight and a weird bright background and to hide every otehr environmental context. But basically it's impossible. People are just not absorbing enough visual information in the original image and their brain is doing wonky tricks. lol

^ HIDE THE DRESS IN THE WHITE HOUSE'S SHADOW! MAYBE THAT WILL WORK!!! I'm serious!

 

[Costia]

Even the one corrected for blue lighting (which is dead wrong anyway. Where would blue lighting come from in that context anyway! lol), the dress still comes out looking grey blue and brown OR overexposed yellow light blue and black (or fadey black) to me. You would have to actually fiddle with it way more and remove much more blue and add more yellow for me to ever believe it's supposed to be white and gold.

Like others have mentioned multiple times: shadow = blue lighting.A camera doing the wrong white balance (for example due to yellowish sunlight outside) can make it quite intense blue.
Look at white temperature charts. Sunlight is ~5500K and shadow/cloudy is ~9000K - its quite blue.
You don't notice it because you naturally compensate for it, like the red sign photo demonstrates.

 

[Lord Error]

Look like what?

Like the dress in the photo. I'd like to see that too, because to me that seems practically physically impossible without some really elaborate, unlikely lighting setup. Especially as there's an actual white color dress sitting right next to this blue one, which would have to remain unaffected by said lighting/shadow setup.

 

[Dreavus]

This has probably been posted at some point, but the standard matter of chromatic adaptation can be illustrated in other photos (although the dress is unique for straddling a line at which some people, at some times, are interpreting the picture's light balance differently).

The banner areas on the left are entirely gray -- as indicated -- but you'll perceive them as red, by automatically correcting for the blue lighting. Now if similarly tinted lighting were to be misperceived in a photo (either by not seeing it and not adjusting for it, or adjusting when it isn't there), you'd get the result of seeing those same colors differently.

Wow, this picture is very cool.

I'm convinced that something like this must be happening, people are just perceiving different colour corrections for some reason.

 

[Dominator]

Well damn, just asked my mom and step-dad and they see white/gold. I showed them the picture of the woman wearing it and the one thats for sale online, and they go "Yeah, that black/blue but the one in the picture is white/gold its just a different color dress. Same style, different color".

And then I try to tell them its the exact same dress, and they aren't having it. Oh well lol

 

[InaudibleWhispa]

Here's similar overexposure on a blue t-shirt and black dress.

 

[Cømet]

A pair of girls were talking (loudly I might add) about this on the train home today.


Sounds silly.

 

[SnowHawk]

I can see both colours at will.

If you see white and gold stare at the bottom left corner focusing on the black, if you see blue and black stare at the top right corner focusing on the bright light.

 

[Flo_Evans]

Here's a similar effect:

Thats not similar at all, its clearly white in the highlights and the saturation has been boosted, possibly shot through a polarizing filter.

 

[DoubleYou]

Here's similar overexposure on a blue t-shirt and black dress.

Well that doesn't change the fact that the second pic shows white and gold right?

 

[InaudibleWhispa]

Well that doesn't change the fact that the second pic shows white and gold right?

Still looks like a blue t-shirt to me, just light blue instead of dark.

 

[Lord Error]

Like others have mentioned multiple times: shadow = blue lighting.A camera doing the wrong white balance (for example due to yellowish sunlight outside) can make it quite intense blue.
Look at white temperature charts. Sunlight is ~5500K and shadow/cloudy is ~9000K - its quite blue.
You don't notice it because you naturally compensate for it, like the red sign photo demonstrates.

Yeah, but if you white balance correct it that (wrong) way, then nothing else on the photo would make any sense anymore, and an already overexposed photo would look burned to hell. And even then, the blue color would look nothing like white.

 

[Prax]

DOES THIS HELP?!?!

It doesn't actually help me much because of the reflectiveness of the dress' material shows that it's white light overexposing blue.
You truly would have to not take in enough visual information for the dress to be white.
Like I can almost imagine, but it's impossible.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

DOES THIS HELP?!?!

the dress is #benghazi

 

[Dreavus]

Still looks like a blue t-shirt to me, just light blue instead of dark.

I kinda get the blue/white thing, but the black is throwing me for a loop in both this picture and the original dress picture.

 

[Loofy]

Here's similar overexposure on a blue t-shirt and black dress.

I still dont get it. Are people saying this looks black to them?

I dont see how people are saying the gold/brown looks black to them.

 

[AnathemicOne]

I hate this fucking dress

 

[Fusebox]

the dress is #benghazi

What color does Hilary think the dress is? Her 2016 nomination depends on the answer...

 

[Dicer]

Why did this become such a huge frickin deal, and who started it?

 

[Prax]

I still dont get it. Are people saying this looks black to them?

I dont see how people are saying the gold/brown looks black to them.

We just "know" it's overexposed black.
It doesn't look technically black. It is technically tans and browns on a colour picker and to the eyes. We just have knowledge of what the original colour is supposed to be.

 

[Costia]

Can anyone produce a single pic of a white and gold dress with enough blue shadow cast to make it look like that in the photo?

Here:

The first patch is from the white shirt in the shadow here:

Note that the half of the shirt in the sun still looks white. (edit: which means that the white balance is correct for the sunny part, but wrong for the shadow)
The second patch is from the dress.
The white shirt in the shadow looks bluer than the blue in the dress.

The image is from here:
http://www.digitalcameraworld.com/2...-and-in-camera-solutions-for-any-situation/3/

 

[Muffdraul]

Here's a similar effect:

I knew this would somehow turn out to be Obama's fault.

 

[Andodalf]

If i see blue and gold what is wrong with me?

 

[mu cephei]

Sorry if this has already been posted, but here's a New Scientist article providing an explanation.

I first saw the dress most definitely as gold and white, but when I scrolled back up after reading the article and only had half of the image on the screen, it switched to blue and black, and now I have to try pretty hard to see it as gold and white.

 

[Loofy]

We just "know" it's overexposed black.
It doesn't look technically black. We just have knowledge of what the original colour is.

Thats what I thought too. So why are all these sites talking about how people have different cones in their eyes that make them interpret it as gold instead of black?

 

[InaudibleWhispa]

I kinda get the blue/white thing, but the black is throwing me for a loop in both this picture and the original dress picture.

See the blue/white is throwing me off as much as the black/gold, cos to me the dress isn't "very, very light blue, almost white" as some are saying, it's quite clearly blue, like a slightly less vibrant sky. Black doesn't look black to me, more brown/bronzy especially in the top centre, but I guess my brains interpretation of the lighting and exposure kinda fills in the blanks and gives an impression of black even when it isn't.

 

[Zoe]

Thats what I thought too. So why are all these sites talking about how people have different cones in their eyes that make them interpret it as gold instead of black?

It's bull. It's how the brain is interpreting it. That's how some people are able to flip-flop on what they see.

 

[Randam]

These are the 2 interpretations I see:

The first is corrected for blue lighting (shade).
The second is corrected for yellow lighting.
What you perceive depends on what lighting you think it is.
Apparently the second is the correct one because the dress isn't in the shadow but is actually lit by a yellow spotlight.

i'm seeing a mixture of the both pics above.

the one from the op is light blue and gold/brown for me:

This has probably been posted at some point, but the standard matter of chromatic adaptation can be illustrated in other photos (although the dress is unique for straddling a line at which some people, at some times, are interpreting the picture's light balance differently).

http://abload.de/img/colorconstancy-ritsdmuyh.jpg

The banner areas on the left are entirely gray -- as indicated -- but you'll perceive them as red, by automatically correcting for the blue lighting. Now if similarly tinted lighting were to be misperceived in a photo (either by not seeing it and not adjusting for it, or adjusting when it isn't there), you'd get the result of seeing those same colors differently.

both are the same for me.
I see red in the left one too.

 

[Prax]

Thats what I thought too. So why are all these sites talking about how people have different cones in their eyes that make them interpret it as gold instead of black?

I think some people are actually confusing what their brain wants them to interpret (the colour "story" of the image) and what they are actually seeing on a technical level.
Some people may actually have broken eyes that don't work unless in ideal lighting conditions though? So I don't know. lol

 

[Arrogant Bastard]

Blue and black...

 

[ostrichKing]

If i see blue and gold what is wrong with me?

This is me...I see lighter blue and golden brown...never saw it as white...but also DEFINITELY have never seen it as black...

 

[Phreaker]

I want it to go back to white/gold, but I can't make it happen, it's lost...forever

 

[Hollycat]

I see blue and brown... wtf

 

[Flo_Evans]

Here:

The first patch is from the white shirt in the shadow here:

Note that the half of the shirt in the sun still looks white.
The second patch is from the dress.
The white shirt in the shadow looks bluer than the blue in the dress.

The image is from here:
http://www.digitalcameraworld.com/2...-and-in-camera-solutions-for-any-situation/3/

uh right because the part of the shirt in the shadow is under exposed. If exposed properly for the shadows it will be very pale blue.

The dress image is over exposed, making the deep blue lighter than it is IRL.

 

[CDX]

I see what clearly could be called White and Gold ...or more precisely not white but a very light blue and golden color.

Cropped in Photoshop the supposed white part for sure looks blue, but it sure as heck isn't super dark blue.

The gold part doesn't look black though. Dark Gold? Sure!

This thread is killing me.

This is clearly gold and then white right?

How can any of this even come close to black and blue?

I see these colors on the full picture, no matter how I look at.


The real dress may have black on it, but that's not what the colors are in the overexposed photo that we are all looking at. The photo has no black on the dress. Computers prove it.

So I'm just going to assume that people that see blue and black are seeing an optical illusion. A weird coincidental optical illusion of colors that just happens to make the overexposed photo look similar to the dress in real life to some people.

I believe when people say "black" they do not literally mean that the direct color they are observing is black, but rather a black with a gold tint added from the lighting that they can see past. Those who are saying blue/black or blue/brown or blue/black-gold or blue/brownish-gold are all equally correct by various definitions.

The only ones who are incorrect are those insisting on the white/gold of the dress.

I believe when people say "white" they do not literally mean that the direct color they are observing is white, but rather a white with a blue tint added from the lighting that they can see past.

Fixed.

Or this, I guess. The photo has 2 competing color optical illusions in it. And I guess the brain just has to pick one.

People that see White. Those people's brains are choosing the light blue colors shifted to white optical illusion over the other color optical illusion.

People that see Black. Those people's brains are choosing the dark brown/gold colors shifted to black optical illusion over the other color optical illusion. *This one just happens coincidentally to make the overexposed photo look similar to the dress in real life.*


White and Black are not colors on the dress in that overexposed photo. If you see one or the other you're seeing a color shift optical illusion, one way or the other.


Computers prove the true colors in the overexposed photo are light blue, and dark brown goldish colors

 

[ostrichKing]

I want it to go back to white/gold, but I can't make it happen, it's lost...forever

I wish I could see Black...but it's just not happening...i see lightish blue and golden brown...that people are seeing it as black is blowing my mind still...

 

[Booshka]

I wonder if some intelligent Alien species is just Facepalming, (if they even have faces,) while they observe Humans argue over this dress.

 

[TedNindo]

I saw it as white and gold because of f.lux.

 

[Herbspiceguy]

I'm sure I saw white and gold clearly for a sec, then scrolled down and back up and now all I can see is black & blue. I actually thought it was an animated .gif to fool ppl.