My brain thinks as follows:
Bright light at the edges: object lit from behind and front thus in shadows
+ bright light in image: camera lowers sensitivity and things thus appear darker than they are
-> white and gold

I know it's wrong but I can't see it any differently

Dinosawer wrote:My brain thinks as follows:
Bright light at the edges: object lit from behind and front thus in shadows
+ bright light in image: camera lowers sensitivity and things thus appear darker than they are
-> white and gold

I know it's wrong but I can't see it any differently

same here. i just can't get my brain to filter out the white balance effects

I think the "missing cones" explanation seems unlikely. Some people have reported seeing first one color combo, then the other. If they saw white and gold because they were physically unable to see black and blue, that sort of thing wouldn't happen.

I asked about the lighting as well to see if there was a correlation there....and there is! It would seem that the white/gold folks perceive the dress as being poorly lit, while the black/blue people perceive it as brightly lit. This is important from a color theory point of view.. When objects are in the shadows, they assume a more bluish hue.

In other words, if you think the dress is shadowed, you think it is white and gold. If not, you think it is black and blue.

i tell you what i see on that picture

#6A5B37
and
#6A6E7F

everything else is more or less faulty interpretation.

(values taken from paint's "copy color" function, errors included)

Dinosawer wrote:My brain thinks as follows:
Bright light at the edges: object lit from behind and front thus in shadows
+ bright light in image: camera lowers sensitivity and things thus appear darker than they are
-> white and gold

I know it's wrong but I can't see it any differently

Yeah, my thinking is the opposite:
1. The room is brightly lit, probably from overhead lights, which distribute light more or less evenly
2. The dress is not being held in a way that would shield it from overhead light.
3. Therefore the dress is not in shadow.
4. = brightly lit blue and black.

How can black be any color other than black despite the lighting? I hope this picture helps those of you who see black and blue to understand my perspective.

BFett wrote:How can black be any color other than black despite the lighting?

Diffuse reflection.

DigitalDuck wrote:

BFett wrote:How can black be any color other than black despite the lighting?

Diffuse reflection.

Exactly. Also, I still don't see white. Just baby blue.

Initially I saw white gold, now I see blue black. Weirdest thing

DigitalDuck wrote:

BFett wrote:How can black be any color other than black despite the lighting?

Diffuse reflection.

This, and also there's no such thing as pure black (for clothing, that is)

Doesn't diffuse reflection apply to all colors other than black because black absorbs all light?

BFett wrote:Doesn't diffuse reflection apply to all colors other than black because black absorbs all light?

As I said,

Dinosawer wrote:there's no such thing as pure black (for clothing, that is)

Black is really just very dark grey or blue or something like that, otherwise you wouldn't be able to see any shading on black stuff.

The Dress is OBVIOUSLY... the last viral idiocy of the month. I'll pass on this one.

Lum wrote:The Dress is OBVIOUSLY... the last viral idiocy of the month. I'll pass on this one.

Viral idiocy is the spice of life!

The Dress is OBVIOUSLY...

...far too modest and conservative, and without delicious contents. Seriously, this is about as fun as looking at sausage peels when we all know that it's the actual sausage that matters.

-Hardenberg