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:
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.
Earlier today I was sat in a dark room reading this thread, I looked at the picture above and it clearly had blue tones with warm dark grey. The dress was obviously blue/black.
I’m sitting outside in the light now, looking at the same picture on the same phone in the same app and now it’s white and gold/brown.
Without going on my pc and colour picking it myself I can’t tell what colour the picture really is since my eyes seem all to happy to lie to me about it.
You missed the whole point. If I take a white dress and then shine a blue lamp on it, then take a photo.The pixels will be 100% blue, but would that mean the dress itself is blue?
The yellow background could be lit by another window or a different light source, so one could argue we don’t have a good reference to tell. But the point is that the “picture of a thing” is not “the thing” itself, and there is always a possibility that they are different.
If I showed you a picture of a green surface, and asked you what color it is, would you say that it’s white and that there’s probably green light shining on it?
No, but it doesn’t mean the other answer is invalid too. If there is no reference in the picture to tell what kind of light condition it was shot at, both answers could be possible.
They’re not stupid, their visual cortex just lacks the ability to calibrate to context. You can see in the picture that the scene is very brightly lit. If your visual cortex is in working order, you’ll adjust your perception of the colours. The picture reveals that some people struggle to do that.
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.
No one was really asking “what color is the dress”, they were asking what colors are on the photo.
This is not my recollection of this at all. Everyone knows what physical colors are on the screen. If so people who see the image as white and gold wouldn’t have been shocked/angry to learn the dress is actually blue and black.
If they were asking about actual color of the dress that you cannot see, what the fuck is the point? That’s like saying, we put orange cat in fully closed box. What color is the cat? And you then claim it’s not orange, it’s black because there is no light inside the fully closed box so the cat is actually black. That’s the level of stupid argument with this stupid ass dress.
I can also shoot a white dress to look entirely blue because I’m gonna use cool white light at 9000 fucking Kelvins and fuck up the cameras white balance to make shit look anything but its actual color. I can also take a normal photo and then just drag some sliders in photo editor and fuck up colors and then ask some bullshit question about colors and then go like “well, achtually it’s not that color”.
It’s also funny when people argue it’s not actually white because color picker says it’s light blue. Firstly, color motherfucking temperature. Secondly, open color wheel and see where it’s positioned. It’s in the white segment mildly nudging towards blue. The part where I’m not gonna argue is perception of gradients. This isn’t “this gold color is actually black bullshit”, but actual science where people perceive correct colors differently. For someone a certain gradient of red is perceived as lighter or darker compared to someone else. But certainly isn’t perceived as green. Or black. Or whatever other basic color.
This person doesn’t understand pixels lol. You picked one pixel. Pick 100 of them and average them. It’s in the white spectrum with a slight shade of blue hue. If you look at it on the color wheel, it’s well within white segment slightly towards the blue. When you zoom out of single pixels, it’s white that you get under cool white light. It’s still considered white.
As for gold, computer screens do not display gold in specular way how you see it with eyes.When you pick pixels, they will be in range of brown. Again, you don’t seem to underetand pixels. And ultimately, this is suppose to be black, remember? Where’s the black?
The “after” photos of a dress show dark blue with black lace details because it was not captured in bullshit lighting. Where is that on the picked pixels? Just like years ago we are once again arguing over bullshit doctored/manipulated/bad photo of a dress arguing what color it is. It’s beyond stupid and I can’t believe people are still this dumb to argue about colors that aren’t even there. I don’t care how dress actually looks, you showed me the photo of it and you’re asking me how the dress looks like on the photo, not in reality. The rest is within the color picker which is mathematical representation of colors that doesn’t give a shit how eyes work. And it picks very faint blue and brown (thats perceived by eyes as white and gold). Not dark blue and black.
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.
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.
Earlier today I was sat in a dark room reading this thread, I looked at the picture above and it clearly had blue tones with warm dark grey. The dress was obviously blue/black.
I’m sitting outside in the light now, looking at the same picture on the same phone in the same app and now it’s white and gold/brown.
Without going on my pc and colour picking it myself I can’t tell what colour the picture really is since my eyes seem all to happy to lie to me about it.
The “white” pixels are literally blue. The “black” ones can be considered gold due to the lighting.
You missed the whole point. If I take a white dress and then shine a blue lamp on it, then take a photo.The pixels will be 100% blue, but would that mean the dress itself is blue?
But you can clearly see that the lighting is bright yellow-white, not blue…
The yellow background could be lit by another window or a different light source, so one could argue we don’t have a good reference to tell. But the point is that the “picture of a thing” is not “the thing” itself, and there is always a possibility that they are different.
If I showed you a picture of a green surface, and asked you what color it is, would you say that it’s white and that there’s probably green light shining on it?
No, but it doesn’t mean the other answer is invalid too. If there is no reference in the picture to tell what kind of light condition it was shot at, both answers could be possible.
That’s… literally not what this phenominon is about, either. Talk about missing the point.
That is literally what the argument is caused by, adaptive perception to lighting conditions.
It’s exactly the point. White fabric will appear blue in blue light, which is why some people see this white dress and think it’s blue.
They’re not stupid, their visual cortex just lacks the ability to calibrate to context. You can see in the picture that the scene is very brightly lit. If your visual cortex is in working order, you’ll adjust your perception of the colours. The picture reveals that some people struggle to do that.
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.
This is not my recollection of this at all. Everyone knows what physical colors are on the screen. If so people who see the image as white and gold wouldn’t have been shocked/angry to learn the dress is actually blue and black.
If they were asking about actual color of the dress that you cannot see, what the fuck is the point? That’s like saying, we put orange cat in fully closed box. What color is the cat? And you then claim it’s not orange, it’s black because there is no light inside the fully closed box so the cat is actually black. That’s the level of stupid argument with this stupid ass dress.
I can also shoot a white dress to look entirely blue because I’m gonna use cool white light at 9000 fucking Kelvins and fuck up the cameras white balance to make shit look anything but its actual color. I can also take a normal photo and then just drag some sliders in photo editor and fuck up colors and then ask some bullshit question about colors and then go like “well, achtually it’s not that color”.
It’s also funny when people argue it’s not actually white because color picker says it’s light blue. Firstly, color motherfucking temperature. Secondly, open color wheel and see where it’s positioned. It’s in the white segment mildly nudging towards blue. The part where I’m not gonna argue is perception of gradients. This isn’t “this gold color is actually black bullshit”, but actual science where people perceive correct colors differently. For someone a certain gradient of red is perceived as lighter or darker compared to someone else. But certainly isn’t perceived as green. Or black. Or whatever other basic color.
This is the color picker in the image you replied to. Do you really think the colors on the left are white and the colors on the right are gold?
This person doesn’t understand pixels lol. You picked one pixel. Pick 100 of them and average them. It’s in the white spectrum with a slight shade of blue hue. If you look at it on the color wheel, it’s well within white segment slightly towards the blue. When you zoom out of single pixels, it’s white that you get under cool white light. It’s still considered white.
As for gold, computer screens do not display gold in specular way how you see it with eyes.When you pick pixels, they will be in range of brown. Again, you don’t seem to underetand pixels. And ultimately, this is suppose to be black, remember? Where’s the black?
The “after” photos of a dress show dark blue with black lace details because it was not captured in bullshit lighting. Where is that on the picked pixels? Just like years ago we are once again arguing over bullshit doctored/manipulated/bad photo of a dress arguing what color it is. It’s beyond stupid and I can’t believe people are still this dumb to argue about colors that aren’t even there. I don’t care how dress actually looks, you showed me the photo of it and you’re asking me how the dress looks like on the photo, not in reality. The rest is within the color picker which is mathematical representation of colors that doesn’t give a shit how eyes work. And it picks very faint blue and brown (thats perceived by eyes as white and gold). Not dark blue and black.
You are absolutely right. How most people don’t seem to get this fact is beyond me.
Next up: the dress worn by the woman on the right.
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…
Why are people downvoting someone for admitting they made a mistake? It takes some courage to do that.
Probably because they qualified it by making an excuse for themself instead of just owning the error without ‘strings attached’.