I don't think that's it. Under no light conditions (ranging from the bright of the day to the complete darkness) does that dress ever look white to me. The highlights on it will just never match something white sitting in the shadow - and the obvious yellow lighting that permeates the whole photo makes it clear that the other color is black, with that yellow highlight shining onto it. Besides, it's worth repeating - there's an actual white dress right next to the main one.The overexposure is the key. Look at the light in the areas next to the dress .. . they are all washed out due to too much light. If you can get your brain to apply those lighting conditions to the dress, it will appear blue/black. But there is only a small amount of context lighting so your brain is using the ambient lighting of your local room.
Basically, it is a real life version of this famous optical illusion wherein the A and B squares are actually the exact same color
I still see gold and white with blue tint. Ever since this thread was posted.![]()
Look at the photo. Now look down at this sentence and view the dress in your visual periphery. The color has changed.
Never was, never will be white and gold.
It's blue and and black. The black has a slight goldish/brown tint.
Train going in or coming out of the tunnel?
![]()
Train going in or coming out of the tunnel?
![]()
the blur is going right so it's going in
Train going in or coming out of the tunnel?
![]()
Train going in or coming out of the tunnel?
![]()
Then that makes it not black.
Black/blue people who can't see the white:
Stare at the white/gold part of the middle graphic, then look up at the dress.
Train going in or coming out of the tunnel?
![]()
I tried to make it white and gold. I really tried. My thought process:
Conclusion: Black and blue is the correct way to see it and I can forget about this now.
- It looks black and blue.
- The real dress is black and blue.
- Isolating the colors gives a very light blue and some darkish, brownish, yellowish colors.
Both. It goes forward then backwards really fast.
Train going in or coming out of the tunnel?
![]()
Train going in or coming out of the tunnel?
![]()
Its white and gold. If you see differently your eyes are broken. Yes the actual dress is blue and black. The picture is white and gold. If you show me a picture of a blue sun it isn't yellow its blue. It doesn't matter what the sun's color actually is. Go see a doctor kids.
The picture in the OP shows a blue and black dress tho.
Basically, white&golds can never really trust their own eyes ever again. In the future when you see a white or a gold object, you'll require someone else to provide a second opinion.
If it was White/Gold, it would look like the image on the left using the same lighting and camera conditions.
No one could see the color blue until modern times
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/what-is-blue-and-how-do-we-see-color-2015-2#ixzz3TAJS41Sv
This isn't another story about that dress, or at least, not really.
It's about the way that humans see the world, and how until we have a way to describe something, even something so fundamental as a color, we may not even notice that it's there.
Until relatively recently in human history, "blue" didn't exist, not in the way we think of it.
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/what-is-blue-and-how-do-we-see-color-2015-2#ixzz3TAJYa951
look at farthest end of the tunnel, the train goes one way.Train going in or coming out of the tunnel?
![]()
Nah. You got a disease bro. Look into that shit.
The debate isn't what color the actual dress is, we already know its blue and black. The debate is what color the edited photo is. And its white and gold.
We know the actual color is blue and black, therefore if the picture was normal and unedited, everyone would see blue and black unanimously unless they're colorblind.
We know the picture is edited and overexposed. People either see white/gold or blue/black. Since any people see white/gold at all. That means the edited picture has to be white/gold since if it was actually blue/black, everyone would see blue/black as the picture would not be edited.
Conclusion: Actual dress is blue/black. Edited photo is white/gold. If you see white/gold you are seeing the actual color of the picture. If you see blue/black your eyes are seeing colors that aren't there and are broken.
You're welcome.
We know the actual color is blue and black, therefore if the picture was normal and unedited, everyone would see blue and black unanimously unless they're colorblind.
We know the picture is edited and overexposed. People either see white/gold or blue/black. Since any people see white/gold at all. That means the edited picture has to be white/gold since if it was actually blue/black, everyone would see blue/black as the picture would not be edited.
Conclusion: Actual dress is blue/black. Edited photo is white/gold. If you see white/gold you are seeing the actual color of the picture. If you see blue/black your eyes are seeing colors that aren't there and are broken.
You're welcome.
The actual colour of the picture is sky blue and brown.
White/gold and blue/black are seeing exaggerated versions of the colors because their brain colour corrects it for assumed shade/artificial lighting.
Thats just what color you consider them, some people consider it white/gold/brown/light blue etc. The point is the actual color is not dark blu/black
Thats just what color you consider them, some people consider it white/gold/brown/light blue etc. The point is the actual color is not dark blu/black
The actual colour of the picture is sky blue and brown.
White/gold and blue/black are seeing exaggerated versions of the colors because their brain colour corrects it for assumed shade/artificial lighting.
Thats just what color you consider them, some people consider it white/gold/brown/light blue etc. The point is the actual color is not dark blu/black
Thats just what color you consider them, some people consider it white/gold/brown/light blue etc. The point is the actual color is not dark blu/black
Too much assumptions of consistent lighting in this logicIf it was White/Gold, it would look like the image on the left using the same lighting and camera conditions.
![]()
You have to look at the floor as well as the black/white object on the bottom left. The sky is in a window behind the dress. If it was lighting the room, then the floor would be blue.
Too much assumptions of consistent lighting in this logic
We know the actual color is blue and black, therefore if the picture was normal and unedited, everyone would see blue and black unanimously unless they're colorblind.
We know the picture is edited and overexposed. People either see white/gold or blue/black. Since any people see white/gold at all. That means the edited picture has to be white/gold since if it was actually blue/black, everyone would see blue/black as the picture would not be edited.
Conclusion: Actual dress is blue/black. Edited photo is white/gold. If you see white/gold you are seeing the actual color of the picture. If you see blue/black your eyes are seeing colors that aren't there and are broken.
You're welcome.
Sit down dude. You haven't figured anything out.
I based the black and white levels off of the black and white object on the left as well as the floor. The window is behind the dress, not contributing much lighting to the room, especially not compared to the halogen lights overhead. And obviously, it helps that we know for certain the actual colors of the dress. Going one step further and slightly correcting for exposure and white balance, both versions would look like this:
![]()
me said:Too much assumptions of consistent lighting in this logic
I know what actual color it is. Your logic is bad, though. Knowing the actual color of the dress is a cop out for making your assumptions.