Support NeoGAF

[Africanus]

Then explain the various white highlights within your blue that show where the dress is being hit by light rather than shadow.

All of the light in the picture is coming from the other side of the dress. The person taking the picture is in the store, and the store has less light in it than outside the store.

Black doesn't become gold in light.

White however does become blue in shadow.


Once again, no support. Just, "you're wrong, I'm right, that's it."

Really says something about your opinion...

This argument has become circular.

The dress is objectively blue/black; that is no opinion.
Black can appear "gold" in light, observe: http://vine.co/v/O2rvPnlEzqi
Light is shining on the dress from the front as well.

The only explanations that are needed are for those whose eyes display to them a white/gold image compared to the true color of the dress.

 

[DJ88]

Man what happened here while I was asleep?

There's only three simple possibilities here guys. Your damn eyes aren't fucked up, the explanation in the OP is complete bullshit, and there's isn't any sort of witchcraft or disease in your brain if the colors switch for you.

Posibility #1

You see the colors the exact way they look in the photograph. Your brain works like the color picker in photoshop. Your brain is incapable of applying lighting context to be able to ignore what the literal values of the colors are and process what the actual colors are. The people who are losing their minds about how they can't possibly get how others can see either black or white in the picture just don't understand how lighting or our brains work. No one is having an argument about what pixels the colors are. That's a dumb boring argument. Yes, the pixels are blue and brown/gold, anyone with an image editing software can see that, congratulations. The real discussions are in the next 2 possibilities.

Posibility #2

Your brain perceives the dress as being under a shadow or in the shade. Your brain applies this lighting context and correctly makes the blue color white and the gold stays gold. You see white and gold, THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT. Your brain is just simply choosing the wrong lighting condition. It is correctly applying the lighting condition of a shadow, but unfortunately it's the wrong lighting condition. The right one is...

Posibility #3

Your brain percieves the dress as being in a store under indoor lighting which usually has a yellowish tint to it. Your brain applies this lighting context and correctly makes the gold color black and the blue stays blue. You see blue and black. This is the actual lighting condition of the photo and what the real life dress is.

So in summary, there is nothing wrong with seeing white/gold or blue/black. If you see either of these two then pat yourself on the back, you're able to correctly interpret lighting cues and conditions. There's just not enough context to pick which of the two lighting conditions is happening. It's pretty much a 50/50 crapshoot whether your brain clings onto the right one or the wrong one and it's really hard to switch to the other. Your brain might suddenly flip flop and you'll see the other colors, no the OP picture wasn't changed, no nothing is wrong with your eyes or your brain, that's just how powerful the brain is. Some people can willfully see either combination and they have a strong will over what their brain percieves.

If you can't get out of possibility #1 or can't fathom how someone can be in #2 or #3 then there's no hope for you. This is the 100% correct explanation and that's all there is to it.

Now let this get buried in the pages and may the:

"But the pixels are blue and gold guyssss!!!"
"Woah it was white and gold this morning, but it's black and blue now!"
"I swear the OP is trolling us by changing the picture"
"How can anyone see blue as white? Howww?????"
"If you see gold as black, then your an alien"

posts continue forever!

 

[Gastone]

Black and blue

 

[Konka]

It's white and gold, but if I tilt my phone far enough, it becomes black and blue. Try it. I love you.

Where is the white? Show me.

 

[justjustin]

If I wanted to paint a perfect copy of the picture I'd pick white with a little blue, and gold with a bit of black.

 

[MindGamingMantis]

I actually see both blue and black and white and gold.

 

[Coreda]

Then explain the various white highlights within your blue that show where the dress is being hit by light rather than shadow.

All of the light in the picture is coming from the other side of the dress. The person taking the picture is in the store, and the store has less light in it than outside the store.

Black doesn't become gold in light.

White however does become blue in shadow.

Several things are incorrect. A) The actual dress is blue and black, B) There is a light shining on the dress from within the store, self-casting shadows can clearly be seen on the dress (see the whole left side and the bottom-right edge of the vest), C) Black does become lighter when overexposed, there's a video demonstrating this on the previous page and numerous examples elsewhere.

 

[mgarnica89]

 

[Conkerkid11]

This argument has become circular.

The dress is objectively blue/black; that is no opinion.
Black can appear "gold" in light, observe: http://vine.co/v/O2rvPnlEzqi
Light is shining on the dress from the front as well.

The only explanations that are needed are for those whose eyes display to them a white/gold image compared to the true color of the dress.

That's still not black though.

 

[Lynd7]

Man what happened here while I was asleep?

There's only three simple possibilities here guys. Your damn eyes aren't fucked up, the explanation in the OP is complete bullshit, and there's isn't any sort of witchcraft or disease in your brain if the colors switch for you.

Posibility #1

You see the colors the exact way they look in the photograph. Your brain works like the color picker in photoshop. Your brain is incapable of applying lighting context to be able to ignore what the literal values of the colors are and process what the actual colors are. The people who are losing their minds about how they can't possibly get how others can see either black or white in the picture just don't understand how lighting or our brains work. No one is having an argument about what pixels the colors are. That's a dumb boring argument. Yes, the pixels are blue and brown/gold, anyone with an image editing software can see that, congratulations. The real discussions are in the next 2 possibilities.

Posibility #2

Your brain perceives the dress as being under a shadow or in the shade. Your brain applies this lighting context and correctly makes the blue color white and the gold stays gold. You see white and gold, THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT. Your brain is just simply choosing the wrong lighting condition. It is correctly applying the lighting condition of a shadow, but unfortunately it's the wrong lighting condition. The right one is...

Posibility #3

Your brain percieves the dress as being in a store under indoor lighting which usually has a yellowish tint to it. Your brain applies this lighting context and correctly makes the gold color black and the blue stays blue. You see blue and black. This is the actual lighting condition of the photo and what the real life dress is.

So in summary, there is nothing wrong with seeing white/gold or blue/black. If you see either of these two then pay yourself on the back, you're able to correctly interpret lighting cues and conditions. There's just not enough context to pick which of the two lighting conditions is happening. It's pretty much a 50/50 crapshoot whether your brain clings onto the right one or the wrong one and it's really hard to switch to the other. Your brain might suddenly flip flop and you'll see the other colors, no the OP picture wasn't changed, no nothing is wrong with your eyes or your brain, that's just how powerful the brain is. Some people can willfully see either combination and they have a strong will over what their brain percieves.

If you can't get out of possibility #1 or can't fathom how someone can be in #2 or #3 then there's no hope for you. This is the 100% correct explanation and that's all there is to it.

Now let this get buried in the pages and may the:

"But the pixels are blue and gold guyssss!!!"
"Woah it was white and gold this morning, but it's black and blue now!"
"I swear the OP is trolling us by changing the picture"
"How can anyone see blue as white? Howww?????"
"If you see gold as black, then your an alien"

posts continue forever!

This. The OP should be changed to exclude the whole eye cone thing.

People who have only seen one version wont fully get it unless it changes for them I think. It was bugging me a lot too until it changed.

 

[Africanus]

.

You have a well-rationed post.

It is not that I do not understand why people have different views on the dress.
My point is that the dress is objectively blue/black, rather than any white/gold as I was having a discussion about.
However, your post shall be lost to the tides of time!

 

[Izuna]

I can see both, but as a wallpaper on my phone I can only see white and gold

Should help you see both

 

[Flo_Evans]

Man what happened here while I was asleep?

There's only three simple possibilities here guys. Your damn eyes aren't fucked up, the explanation in the OP is complete bullshit, and there's isn't any sort of witchcraft or disease in your brain if the colors switch for you.

Posibility #1

You see the colors the exact way they look in the photograph. Your brain works like the color picker in photoshop. Your brain is incapable of applying lighting context to be able to ignore what the literal values of the colors are and process what the actual colors are. The people who are losing their minds about how they can't possibly get how others can see either black or white in the picture just don't understand how lighting or our brains work. No one is having an argument about what pixels the colors are. That's a dumb boring argument. Yes, the pixels are blue and brown/gold, anyone with an image editing software can see that, congratulations. The real discussions are in the next 2 possibilities.

Posibility #2

Your brain perceives the dress as being under a shadow or in the shade. Your brain applies this lighting context and correctly makes the blue color white and the gold stays gold. You see white and gold, THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT. Your brain is just simply choosing the wrong lighting condition. It is correctly applying the lighting condition of a shadow, but unfortunately it's the wrong lighting condition. The right one is...

Posibility #3

Your brain percieves the dress as being in a store under indoor lighting which usually has a yellowish tint to it. Your brain applies this lighting context and correctly makes the gold color black and the blue stays blue. You see blue and black. This is the actual lighting condition of the photo and what the real life dress is.

So in summary, there is nothing wrong with seeing white/gold or blue/black. If you see either of these two then pat yourself on the back, you're able to correctly interpret lighting cues and conditions. There's just not enough context to pick which of the two lighting conditions is happening. It's pretty much a 50/50 crapshoot whether your brain clings onto the right one or the wrong one and it's really hard to switch to the other. Your brain might suddenly flip flop and you'll see the other colors, no the OP picture wasn't changed, no nothing is wrong with your eyes or your brain, that's just how powerful the brain is. Some people can willfully see either combination and they have a strong will over what their brain percieves.

If you can't get out of possibility #1 or can't fathom how someone can be in #2 or #3 then there's no hope for you. This is the 100% correct explanation and that's all there is to it.

Now let this get buried in the pages and may the:

"But the pixels are blue and gold guyssss!!!"
"Woah it was white and gold this morning, but it's black and blue now!"
"I swear the OP is trolling us by changing the picture"
"How can anyone see blue as white? Howww?????"
"If you see gold as black, then your an alien"

posts continue forever!

Good summation.

Although I do think there is something wrong with people under #2. There is enough info there to see what the correct lighting is, they are just ignoring it.

 

[Africanus]

That's still not black though.

Jesus te salva.

 

[Izuna]

You have a well-rationed post.

It is not that I do not understand why people have different views on the dress.
My point is that the dress is objectively blue/black, rather than any white/gold as I was having a discussion about.
However, your post shall be lost to the tides of time!

False, dress is objectively light blue and brown, both are illusions

 

[Lionheart1827]

Holy shit I was seeing white/gold all day and now I hop on the train and look at my phone and I finally see blue/black. What sorcery is this?

 

[Kimaka]

Cherry pick the lightest part of the dress to prove that it is gold lol

 

[MiszMasz]

That's still not black though.

 

[Slime]

I scrolled up and saw black and blue, but now I see white and gold again. What in the what

 

[Conkerkid11]

Jesus te salva.

but if the pixel is, as you say, gold, isn't that what's at stake?

no one is arguing the actual dress isn't blue and black. but there's no black on that dress in the picture.

This is also what I was saying earlier. The title of the thread is, "The colors of this photo will appear different to everyone".

All that shows is that its clearly gold, and when there's less light on the gold it appears darker. It's still not even close to black.

This. I started using the Vine everywhere to support the white and gold opinion.

 

[FStop7]

That's still not black though.

You should go to a doctor.

 

[Fluffhead14]

but if the pixel is, as you say, gold, isn't that what's at stake?

no one is arguing the actual dress isn't blue and black. but there's no black on that dress in the picture.

 

[Majmun]

Red and green for me

 

[Cheat Code]

I love that people are angry over this.

 

[Calamari41]

but if the pixel is, as you say, gold, isn't that what's at stake?

no one is arguing the actual dress isn't blue and black. but there's no black on that dress in the picture.

Exactly this. Just because you know that black appears gold in certain lighting conditions or whatever doesn't mean that the picture isn't displaying gold pixels. That's what I thought the argument was about, which is why I was so flabbergasted.

 

[Africanus]

False, dress is objectively light blue and brown, both are illusions

It appears I must explain further.
The dress is objectively blue/black.
The dress in the picture is blue/brown-black-gold given the light.
However, when one is describing it, they do not factor in the light, just as when one is describing, say a brown house bathed in light, they do not refer to it as a yellow house but a brown one.

 

[Kimaka]

but if the pixel is, as you say, gold, isn't that what's at stake?

no one is arguing the actual dress isn't blue and black. but there's no black on that dress in the picture.

The entire picture is made up of different shades of pixels. I can use the eye dropper tool on the dress and come out with a shade of black and blue. Analyzing the picture by one pixel is stupid because you can't get all of the information from one pixel.

 

[Jex]

This argument has become circular.

The dress is objectively blue/black; that is no opinion.
Black can appear "gold" in light, observe:
Light is shining on the dress from the front as well.

The only explanations that are needed are for those whose eyes display to them a white/gold image compared to the true color of the dress.

All that shows is that its clearly gold, and when there's less light on the gold it appears darker. It's still not even close to black.

 

[Izuna]

It appears I must explain further.
The dress is objectively blue/black.
The dress in the picture is blue/brown-black-gold given the light.
However, when one is describing it, they do not factor in the light, just as when one is describing, say a brown house bathed in light, they do not refer to it as a yellow house but a brown one.

You are missing the point, the original dress means nothing. When you can see both it really does look both.

People trying to convince people don't know what they are seeing don't understand it is an illusion yet.

 

[AstroLad]

Anyone know if this kind of color confusion happens even with races? I've definitely had some people where I would think one thing one day and another the next, and as opposed to a stupid dress I would hate to treat someone as the wrong race because of eye issues or whatever this is.

Legitimately questioning some of my earlier interactions with people right now....

 

[Pyramid head]

The dress is in shadow. Not light.

I originally thought that the dress was white and gold, and appeared silhouetted and lit by blue tinted indirect light. I still maintain that using 3D software, I could recreate the above scenario using light bounced off a blue surface hitting a white material, except for one element.

See those strong shadows which the jacket is casting on the dress? You wouldn't be seeing them if it wasn't a direct light casting them.

 

[Conkerkid11]

Anyone know if this kind of color confusion happens even with races? I've definitely had some people where I would think one thing one day and another the next, and as opposed to a stupid dress I would hate to treat someone as the wrong race because of eye issues or whatever this is.

You treat people differently based on their race?

Its been illuminating today to discover how many people's brains don't allow them to understand how light works. As if they've never seen the difference between over-exposed photos and reality before.

Fantastic visual question for a job interviewer looking someone with perceptive capabilities rather than... whatever very special power the white and gold candidates possess that makes up for their eye to brain failures.

wat, next you're going to try and convince me if my mother knew how I would perceive the colors of this dress before giving birth to me, she would have never done it.

He cherry picked the gold part to prove it's gold.

I can re-do that picture using the darkest gold in the dress and it will still be gold.

I like how nobody's responded to this yet...

This is so strange.
I see white and gold. I asked my girl what she sees before she have ever seen it, and she said blue and black. And both of us were convinced of the color we saw.
Wow.

You should probably dump her.

 

[Pie and Beans]

Its been illuminating today to discover how many people's brains don't allow them to understand how light works. As if they've never seen the difference between over-exposed photos and reality before.

Fantastic visual question for a job interviewer looking someone with perceptive capabilities rather than... whatever very special power the white and gold candidates possess that makes up for their eye to brain failures.

 

[Fusebox]

Cherry pick the lightest part of the dress to prove that it is gold lol

He cherry picked the gold part to prove it's gold.

Its been illuminating today to discover how many people's brains don't allow them to understand how light works. As if they've never seen the difference between over-exposed photos and reality before.

These holier-than-though drivebys are the worst.

 

[Izuna]

Anyone know if this kind of color confusion happens even with races? I've definitely had some people where I would think one thing one day and another the next, and as opposed to a stupid dress I would hate to treat someone as the wrong race because of eye issues or whatever this is.

Legitimately questioning some of my earlier interactions with people right now....

LOOOOOOOOOOL

 

[DC R1D3R]

white n gold!

 

[Pachimari]

This is so strange.
I see white and gold. I asked my girl what she sees before she have ever seen it, and she said blue and black. And both of us were convinced of the color we saw.
Wow.

 

[Dishwalla]

I can see white and gold and blue and gold, but I simply cannot see blue and black.

 

[DJ88]

but if the pixel is, as you say, gold, isn't that what's at stake?

no one is arguing the actual dress isn't blue and black. but there's no black on that dress in the picture.

Right, just as there is no white on that dress in the picture.

It isn't what's at stake because it's like arguing what 1+1 equals. You put it in a calculator, it says 2, math and science put an end to the discussion. You put the dress in Photoshop, and the color picker says the colors are blue and gold, end of discussion. You think we'd have an 80 page thread and worldwide debate about this picture if that's what was at stake?

No, the discussion is about how different people are perceiving different lighting conditions to see different color combinations. It's a given what the pixels actually are, it's what people interpret them as that's fascinating.

 

[Africanus]

You are missing the point, the original dress means nothing. When you can see both it really does look both.

People trying to convince people don't know what they are setting don't understand it is an illusion yet.

Explain further this illusion theory of yours.
Does not the original dress determine the colors displayed in the picture?

All that shows is that its clearly gold, and when there's less light on the gold it appears darker. It's still not even close to black.

See, this is where I have disagreement. How is that "Not even close to black"?

 

[Dreams-Visions]

I love that people are angry over this.

nobody wants to feel less than.

and it's interesting how it's changed. earlier today, it was definitely white/grey + gold. 100%. After an hour I looked again and it was unequivocally blue & black and has been ever since. I can't even remember what the white & gold version I thought I saw looks like anymore.

 

[ostrichKing]

Man what happened here while I was asleep?

There's only three simple possibilities here guys. Your damn eyes aren't fucked up, the explanation in the OP is complete bullshit, and there's isn't any sort of witchcraft or disease in your brain if the colors switch for you.

Posibility #1

You see the colors the exact way they look in the photograph. Your brain works like the color picker in photoshop. Your brain is incapable of applying lighting context to be able to ignore what the literal values of the colors are and process what the actual colors are. The people who are losing their minds about how they can't possibly get how others can see either black or white in the picture just don't understand how lighting or our brains work. No one is having an argument about what pixels the colors are. That's a dumb boring argument. Yes, the pixels are blue and brown/gold, anyone with an image editing software can see that, congratulations. The real discussions are in the next 2 possibilities.

Posibility #2

Your brain perceives the dress as being under a shadow or in the shade. Your brain applies this lighting context and correctly makes the blue color white and the gold stays gold. You see white and gold, THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT. Your brain is just simply choosing the wrong lighting condition. It is correctly applying the lighting condition of a shadow, but unfortunately it's the wrong lighting condition. The right one is...

Posibility #3

Your brain percieves the dress as being in a store under indoor lighting which usually has a yellowish tint to it. Your brain applies this lighting context and correctly makes the gold color black and the blue stays blue. You see blue and black. This is the actual lighting condition of the photo and what the real life dress is.

So in summary, there is nothing wrong with seeing white/gold or blue/black. If you see either of these two then pat yourself on the back, you're able to correctly interpret lighting cues and conditions. There's just not enough context to pick which of the two lighting conditions is happening. It's pretty much a 50/50 crapshoot whether your brain clings onto the right one or the wrong one and it's really hard to switch to the other. Your brain might suddenly flip flop and you'll see the other colors, no the OP picture wasn't changed, no nothing is wrong with your eyes or your brain, that's just how powerful the brain is. Some people can willfully see either combination and they have a strong will over what their brain percieves.

If you can't get out of possibility #1 or can't fathom how someone can be in #2 or #3 then there's no hope for you. This is the 100% correct explanation and that's all there is to it.

Now let this get buried in the pages and may the:

"But the pixels are blue and gold guyssss!!!"
"Woah it was white and gold this morning, but it's black and blue now!"
"I swear the OP is trolling us by changing the picture"
"How can anyone see blue as white? Howww?????"
"If you see gold as black, then your an alien"

posts continue forever!

BEST explanation in this thread. I mostly see it as possibility 1...occasionally 2...definitely not 3

 

[synchronicity]

It was white and gold for me this morning, but when I just opened my browser now, it's very clearly black and blue. I don't know?

 

[fierrotlepou]

I see blue and gold. Wtf?

 

[Africanus]

It was white and gold for me this morning, but when I just opened my browser now, it's very clearly black and blue. I don't know?

I have begun to question where there is a large reversal trend among those who are not actively trying to alter the color in their mind. Perhaps their brain adjusted subconsciously?

 

[Conkerkid11]

I see blue and gold. Wtf?

This is how you should see the dress if you don't factor in lighting.

Technically, this should have been the first post in the thread, and then discussion should have probably ended, based on the thread title being the colors of the picture rather than of the actual dress in real life.

 

[LuuKyK]

Yesterday it was white and gold for me, but today I saw the same picture on mobile and it was black and blue. Creeped me out a bit. lol

 

[Kimaka]

He cherry picked the gold part to prove it's gold.



These holier-than-though drivebys are the worst.

To prove that the lace is gold. Some parts are, some parts aren't because of the lighting.

 

[Calamari41]

It had actually been interesting to look at people's attitudes on this just based on the implication in the apparently debunked rods and cones excerpt in the OP which implies that people who see black are superior or functioning at a higher level or something. What would normally just be a discussion on why things appear one way or another based on the way you're interpreting the light source becomes a thread with people acting defensively and incredibly arrogantly, by turn.

Not everyone, by any means, but it's there and it's interesting. I would imagine that the same people telling others to go see a doctor would be equally defensive if there were a blurb erroneously stating that the gold-viewers were "right"

 

[DJ88]

This is how you should see the dress if you don't factor in lighting.

Technically, this should have been the first post in the thread, and then discussion should have probably ended, based on the thread title being the colors of the picture rather than of the actual dress in real life.

Yeah but the whole thing started from the tumblr of a woman whose friends could not decide if the actual real life color of the dress was blue/black or white/gold. If it was about what color are the pixels of the photo then yeah, 5 seconds in photoshop and end of discussion, yaaawwwwwn.