You must log in or register to comment.
I still only see white/gold even though the actual dress was black/blue
So people looking at this photograph actually can perceive this to be white and gold? thats utterly wild. And hard to believe.
I see it as dark brownish yellow and blue
I can never see black and blue. I assume all those who claim to see black and blue are bots. fite me
Ok is this post some sort of trick? I opened up lemmy, saw it white and gold for the first time in my life, then I took a shower, now it is blue and black once more.
10 YEARS AGO?!
Oh yeah, the gold and white dress. I remember some people were acting crazy saying it is blue and white.
Because no one has posted the other photos:
And this is a photo of the same dress taken under proper lighting:
No way, really ? I really thought it was always white and gold. This cannot be the same dress, I do not trust my eyes anymore
The second photo is supposed to be the same dress? Looks like an homage, aka knock-off attempt to me. What happened to the shoulders?
I’ll double-check the source of the second photo, but it looks like the original picture is taken from the back and the second is taken from the front.
Add: Yeah, it’s not the EXACT SAME dress worn to the wedding where the original picture came from, but it is the same design by the same maker.
…Also, THIS is the source the second photo came from and today I learned that the dress actually did drive people insane! Holy fuck! 😭
https://sg.news.yahoo.com/man-whose-mother-law-wore-225725928.html
Some people said the dress was black and blue while others argued it was white and gold. The court heard the couple had a “volatile” relationship and Johnston became enraged with his wife at their home during an argument. He then tackled her to the ground and throttled her using both hands. […] He threatend to “finish her off”, struggled with his wife again, brandished a knife, uttered a further threat that “somebody was going to die” and then attempted to self-harm, the court heard. He pleaded guilty at the same court last month to assaulting his wife to her injury and endangering her life. […] They went on to appear on the Ellen DeGeneres Show in the USA, where they were handed $10,000 and a luxury trip to Grenada.
Man behind viral #TheDress photo jailed for attacking wife
Damn. Sentenced to 4½ years.
Doesn’t look like the shoulder material is physically part of the dress… it’s probably a jacket or shaul.
All three of these look blue and black just with different levels of saturation?? I can understand how people can maybe see the gold, but interpreting the blue as white is baffling to me. Bluer than the day sky.
Left: blue and black.
Middle: light blue and black.
Right: dark blue and black.The dress is blue and black. It will never be white or gold. The lighting or saturation doesn’t matter.
Well the pixels themselves are white and gold so…
I have always only seen black and blue, even in the light version my brain doesn’t make it gold and white. It’s strange to me why people perceive this as gold.
Edit this video was the only one to make me see it https://youtu.be/YB36n00NHBw
We’ll I watched the other video and I finally saw the blue and black. I’ve always seen white gold but now I don’t. Fucking trippy.
Even with my phone cranked all the way up it still looks blue to me. I’ve never been able to see the white and gold version people claim exists.
Maybe my comment can help
I’m still convinced this is the biggest troll. It’s clearly white and gold
I’ve always really liked this explanation image you can find on Wikipedia page for it. Essentially, people who see white and gold are mistaking the lighting to be cold and blue-tinted, rather than warm and yellow-tinted.
The portions inside the boxes are the exact same colors, you can easily check this with a color picker.
What the actual fuck? When this first came around, my eyes saw white and gold, in this post it looks like overexposed brown and blue, and looking at this graphic is fucking with my head! Brains are wee photo editors, aren’t they?
Ah, so white and gold folks are, indeed, mistaken.
Thanks!
Incorrect. It is impossible to deduce the “real” color from the photo, both sets are true.
The photo is simply bistable.
You can argue that “the real dress bla bla bla”, but nobody’s looking at the real dress and everyone’s looking at the photo.
This has been known for almost as long as the picture has been around. Still doesn’t allow me to see it.
As in using the colour picker on the image and finding the corresponding code? That’s actually an explanation that I can get behind. Classic example of trust your instrument.
I see the dress as gold and white, no matter ehow hard I try to see the other side of the coin.
Yup. Really you don’t even need the color picker, as the two horizontal bars seamlessly connecting the two dresses are there to show the same thing.
I think the most fascinating thing about this example image is that I can trick myself into thinking the dress on the left is gold and white. By zooming all the way in so that I can only see the black portion of the dress inside the box and then squinting, it begins to look gold to me. Then scrolling up slowly, the blue portion comes into frame and looks white. It isn’t until I zoom out that the illusion is broken.
I was once able to see the original image as black and blue (though I haven’t managed it today unfortunately), and its baffling how large of a difference it is. You’d think its like some bright sky blue or something, but no, its a deep blue like in the image I sent and our eyes are laughing at us.
Nope. Color cannot be measured, it is created in the brain. Pickers show pixel values (stimulus) and often don’t correlate to the experienced color.
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.
Yeah, this is the best explanation for why this ‘controvesy’ happened.
Certain background lighting conditions and colors can significantly alter the color and luminance of certain objects in that lighting environment, which otherwise, in less extreme lighting environments, look different.
Even just understanding basic color theory can show you how to make a color pallette out of either mutually complimentary colors, or highly contrasting colors… and how humans largely, (though apparently to differing extents and by different means), interpret a total color space by comparing and contrasting the colors within that space to each other, as opposed to against some objective reference point of all possible colors.
The other part of this explanation is that…
People were not talking about the same image.
Someone would argue one way, another person argues another way, and then someone else would do some kind of photoshop job to argue for one side, and their explanation and reasoning and justification would get lost, and ok now you have multiple images spreading around and being argued over by the same population that would…
… in 5 years, essentially start a civil war over the idea of whether or not it makes sense to wear a mask during an epidemic of a virus transmitted in the aerosolized spittle from sneezes, coughs, and even just breathing.
But yeah, when this was an ongoing thing, I’d have multiple different people in different camps… sending me actually different images, and it took a while to figure out which one was the actual original origin image.
Which of course I had to do on my own, but critical thinking and basic research skills, an impulse to verify the base assumptions of a claim or argument… many people do not know how to do this, or only selectively do it with things that challenge their pre-existing notions.
Yeah that would never happen a war. Imagine of 3 groups of people worshipped the same God, just prayed to him on the floor, to a wall, and to the ceiling.- I’m sure they would get along and be super harmonious.
But the dress in the photo looks like it’s in the shadow so it’s a fair assumption that the lighting would be blue-tinted.
How does it look like it’s in a shadow? The rest of the photo is over exposed like in bright lights so it’s safe to assume that the dress is over exposed too.
If theyre the same color, why can i see the black outlines way clearer in the yellow dress w/ blue tint side ?
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 feel so dumb, you did such good work on this and… OK maybe I’ll just take another look in the morning and it’ll make sense
I never understood this concept until you made the outlines the same. That’s the tip i needed to get over the edge. Thanks!
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?
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.
Very interesting. I wonder how big the effect of culture is on how people perceive this situation
I wonder if could be an age component, too? Artificial lighting used to be a lot more yellow. “Party” lighting tends to be more blue.
You can literally sample the rgb values and see it’s blue and black
Edit: am I part of the joke here??? It’s clearly blue and black…
am I part of the joke here??? It’s clearly blue and black…
The objective fact is…it is a blue and black dress. Other photos of the same dress show that.
But I cannot, for the life of me, see how anyone can possibly get that from this photo. Sample the RGB values all you want and it clearly is not black in this photo. The exposure and white balance have messed around with it so much it is incomprehensible to me how anyone can see it as blue and black.
“The phenomenon revealed difference in human color perception…”
Yes, you’re becoming a part of the joke. People LITERALLY see the dress differently. It doesn’t matter what the objective facts are. TBH, it says a lot about humanity. Even when we have evidence that subjective experiences can vary, and even contradict each other, we still end up arguing over whose viewpoint is “correct”.
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.
clearly some problems need to be taken from behind
Solve me Daddy
Optical illusion innit
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.
Hey, just arguing with you in a different comment chain now. So, like, I see the optical illusion. But the background is clearly yellow in the picture? So I don’t understand how your brain is interpreting that part? To me it seems like you’re ignoring the background of the image for this point. Can you go more in depth on that part, specifically? Does that yellow light look blue to you?
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?
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.
The lighting of the room is clearly yellow. The black stripes look to be a very glossy material, which when lit with yellow light reflects goldish. There’s no way that lighting turns a white dress blue.
The lighting of the room is clearly yellow.
That’s not clear to me. The dress looks like it’s in the shade.
Look at everything to the right of the dress, even to the left. Everything is illuminated with bright, yellowish light.
See, it always looked to me like blue light (or maybe shadow) around the dress itself, where the only sense it makes to my brain is that the fabric is white.
Whatever is to the right and behind the dress is definitely in bright yellow light.
Behind the dress, yes. No one’s disputing that. The difference between that bright light and the dress itself makes it look like it’s in shadow, at least to some of us.
Yes, and a room with that kind of lighting wouldn’t make a white dress look blue. Just the radiant light from those surroundings proves that it can’t be in that kind of shadow.
What room? It looks like we’re looking at the back of an object that’s facing out into bright sunlight.
Whatever the setting is, it appears to be bathed in bright sunlight. That’s the important part.
The front of it presumably is. But the back, that we’re looking at, seems to be in shade.
Light bounces around. That’s the whole point of ray tracing. Even if the dress were not in direct light, the light bouncing around the environment would prevent the kind of shade necessary for that.
I dunno. It’s clearly a blue and black dress in a washed-out photo.
I guess I’m just used to seeing washed-out photos, and mentally adjusting the “whitepoint/exposure” (I’m not a photographer) in my brain or whatever.
I have washed out Polaroids from my childhood, so. I don’t think there’s any great mystery here.
If you tilt the photo around on your phone you can start to see it turn black and blue. IIRC it’s because the phenomenon depends on the angle viewed at
You can sample the colours and see it’s white with a very light blue tinge and gold.
People who see it as blue and black are (correctly in this case) auto-correcting for the yellow light as the dress itself is black and blue.
Whereas people who see it as white and gold are (subconsciously) assuming a blue shadow and seeing the pixels as they’re displayed.
You selected the brightest highlights on the dress. I selected more average colors here. I also included WHITE AND GOLD next to the selected colors, so you can see what they actually look like. Are you really saying that blue is white and brown-grey is gold?
Well you would select the brightest bit to get an idea of the bit that was least impacted by the shadow.
But yes still closer to white and gold than (dark) blue and black
Where the hell is the black supposed to be? Nothing is that dark here. I can easily accept blue, white, or gold, but there’s clearly no black.
You’re good. It’s black and blue. At a pinch, maybe blue and black.
It’s very clearly white and gold.
You can literally sample the rgb values
It doesn’t matter. This phenomenon can be explained by something called color constancy.
I remember some versions of this image where I could literally switch between perceptions at will, when I imagined different surrounding light temperatures/environments.
It’s a subjective perception.
I can literally switch between perceptions with this exact image. It’s sort of like that “are there six cubes or ten” illusion. Depending on how I look at it, I can see either one.
Exactly. Or that silhouette of a spinning ballerina. I can switch the direction that she is spinning at will as well. There’s nothing to go by because it’s a perfectly flat, projected silhouette without any shadows, so anybody is free to interpret the rotation however they like. 😁
What is global illumination from sky lighting again ??
Carcinogenic.
Color is created in the brain, not in the pixel values. Pixel values often have no correlation to the color that’s produced in the brain.
Stop trolling me. It’s blue and black. I could never figure how people might perceive it otherwise.
They see the blue as shaded white, and the glossy black has enough yellow reflected in it that they think it is shadowy gold. Basically, you’re seeing the dress as if it’s lit from the front. You see the colors as blue and black, because that’s what’s on the screen. But other people’s brains decide that the dress is backlit, so the colors facing the camera are actually shaded.
Same, I always assume the ppl. Saying it’s black and blue are trolling me.
I can see both so I promise you it’s not a troll, but it is a wild phenomenon.
When the discussion started, I saw white and gold too. Then, at some point, I saw blue and black and since then I’ve never been able to see it as white and gold again.
Then you clearly have a brain/eye defect because not only does it look black and blue, but the actual dress in real life is black and blue.
And you are obviously right. I can see it with my own eyes.
I only see white gold
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:
This is exactly the thing.
Whatever the dress may be in reality, the photo of it that was circulated was either exposed or twiddled with such that the pixels it’s made of are indeed slightly bluish grey trending towards white (i.e. above 50% grey) and tanish browny gold.
That is absolutely not up for debate. Those are the color values of those pixels, end of discussion.
Edit to add: This entire debacle is a fascinating case of people either failing to or refusing to separate the concept of a physical object versus its very inaccurate representation. The photograph of the object is not the object: ce n’est pas une robe.
The people going around in this thread and elsewhere putting people down and calling them “stupid” or whatever else only because they know that the physical dress itself is black and blue based on external information are studiously ignoring the fact that this is not what the photograph of it shows. That’s because the photograph is extremely cooked and is not an accurate depiction. The debate only exists at all if one party or the other does not have the complete set of information, and at this point in history now that this stupid meme has been driven into the ground quite thoroughly I should hope that all of us do.
It’s true that our brains can and will interpret false color data based on either context or surrounding contrast, and it’s possible that somebody deliberately messed with the original image to amplify this effect in the first place. But the fact remains that arguing about what the dress is versus how it’s been inaccurately depicted is stupid, and anyone still trying that at this late stage is probably doing so in bad faith.
Why not an American photo editor?
A) I’m not American
And
B) America can go fuck itself until it sorts out it’s Nazi problem. I still think Canada should enact a full trade embargo and take our business elsewhere.
I mean… it was a dumb joke on Polish and Polish being homographs, but okay.
Woops
I missed that; bit of a sensitive topic atm…
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.
Next up: the dress worn by the woman on the right.
The point has never been about the actual pixel color codes. It’s about how human perception doesn’t follow those objective metrics.
Distilled down, we perceive color and brightness in comparison to the surrounding scene. The checker shadow illusion is a clear example of the same color looking different.
So the color perception on the dress depends on how the brain decides to color correct the white balance of the scene.
You should watch https://youtu.be/bg41XfnIBvk for an explanation on how to properly get the colors from the image.
I found this image to be a really good way to distill the issue down into the two different modes or perception:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_dress#/media/File:Wikipe-tan_wearing_The_Dress_reduced.svg
Literally the entire planet remembers this. Even people who were not born yet.
When that was going around I saw it as black and blue, and my partner at the time saw it as white and gold. When it was revealed that it was actually the former, I made a comment something like “I guess the difference is I see things as they actually are”, which got me a sharp look. :)
For your information : the dress is really blue and black, according to the store and manufacturer. The vast majority of people see it as white and gold, but I personally think most people are not used to decrypting overexposed pictures, hence their inability to perceive the right colors.
not used to decrypting overexposed pictures
I used to see it black and blue, now I see it white and gold.
+ I do photography and often have to work with overexposed pictures
Edit: just looked at it again now its black and blue. Wtf brain
overexposure is not the issue but improper white balance, the camera was probably set for ~6800K but the lighting in the room was ~2700K
I’ve never seen it at white and gold. Even the brightened photo, while I understand what’s happening to make people see white and gold, is still blueish/purple and black to me. Does that mean I have a tumor?
So closed minded smh
Hey, I have friends who are white and gold… I’ve worked with white and golds.
It’s subconscious it’s not something you can learn. If that were the case people would have no issue understanding how others weren’t ‘decrypting’ the photo.
Also the majority see it as blue and black. 30% as white and gold.
The Journal of Vision, a scientific journal about vision research, announced in March 2015 that a special issue about the dress would be published with the title A Dress Rehearsal for Vision Science.
The first large-scale scientific study on the dress was published in Current Biology three months after the image went viral. The study, which involved 1,400 respondents, found that 57 per cent saw the dress as blue and black, 30 per cent saw it as white and gold, 11 per cent saw it as blue and brown, and two per cent reported it as “other”. Women and older people disproportionately saw the dress as white and gold. The researchers further found that, if the dress was shown in artificial yellow-coloured lighting, almost all respondents saw the dress as black and blue, while they saw it as white and gold if the simulated lighting had a blue bias.
Another study in the Journal of Vision, by Pascal Wallisch, found that people who were early risers were more likely to think the dress was lit by natural light, perceiving it as white and gold, and that “night owls” saw the dress as blue and black.
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
Wow you figured out how to break JPG encryption? Someone call Alan Turing, we got a prodigy over here
I’m French, we often use comparable actions verbs even if it’s not their real context. More commonly known as the metaphore stylistic device.
I’m not French, we also do it, it’s commonly done and you were completely legible. Dude needs to chill
Is it common for the French to put together random semi-related, mostly nonsense words to try and sound like you know what you’re talking about?
I have not enjoyed passing through your comments in this thread
No need to be so sassy c’mon
Being sassy is fine, but being sassy and incorrect makes you look silly.
Just calling em like I see em, but fine. Carry on with the nonsense
I was gonna let you be stupid without saying anything, but you doubled down twice so now I will prove that you are wrong.
The first definition of decrypt in the American Heritage Dictionary is “To Decipher” I’ll admit, not super helpful, so let’s look at the definition of decipher. “To read or interpret (ambiguous, obscure, or illegible matter)”
So for someone to “decrypt” an overexposed picture, they would be, by dictionary definition, trying to interpret what the ambiguous picture was actually showing, since the lighting was making it unclear.
You are in the wrong when saying they used the wrong word, you just don’t have as good a command over the English language as you thought
Do you see em as white and gold?
Sounds like you need to open a dictionary ! It’s one of those big, stern books. Books are those stacks of paper bound together on one side.
Decrypt is closely related to the word “interpret”, which is something I personally interpreted from a history of decrypting English text written by nonnative speakers on the internet. 👍
The same words often have different meanings in different countries; something you should take into account in case you ever decide to take a German gift from a slim Dutchman.
“Decipher” is a mostly synonymous word which is more commonly used in that context.
