• Zagorath@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    75
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    3 months ago

    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.

    • Rooskie91@discuss.online
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      38
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      3 months ago

      “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”.

    • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      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.

      • chunes@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        3 months ago

        The lighting of the room is clearly yellow.

        That’s not clear to me. The dress looks like it’s in the shade.

      • Odo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        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.

          • Odo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            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.

            • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              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.

      • Zagorath@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        What room? It looks like we’re looking at the back of an object that’s facing out into bright sunlight.

            • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              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.

    • Photuris@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      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.

    • criss_cross@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      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