If you care about that what-color-is-the-dress thing…
…this is the best explanation of the phenomenon I’ve seen.
Originally, I was among the 70% of the population who see it as white-and-gold. But after reading the article, I was able to flip back and forth between seeing it as white-and-gold and black-and-blue. Which means that, according to the article, my “brain is game to change.”
Well, I already knew that.
It looked blue and gold to me.
This is the first I’ve heard of this and I see a somewhat washed out blue and black. According to the article, the dress actually is blue and black and it seems to me that the reality of this issue is critical.
Of the 70% who see it as gold and white, some percentage may have more active ‘rods’ than ‘cones’ as some eye doctors speculate but I suspect its mostly in their brain’s interpretation, as the great majority of that 70% are not color blind.
I also suspect that given that the majority are seeing something that isn’t actually there, that it is connected with our current majority’s denial of reality. I realize I have no way of proving whether this is so or not but that’s what my intuition is telling me. On the other hand, both rickl’s ‘blue and gold” and your ability neo to see both leaves me at a loss… Nevertheless, I think this is an important phenomena connected to not just how we visually perceive the world but how we process information as well.
I can only see gold and a white that’s a little blue-ish (like white snow in shadow), no matter how hard I look. Even after I saw a photo of the real blue and black dress, the original picture still looks gold and white. But when I showed it to Mr Whatsit, he said, “That’s obviously blue and black. What’s all the fuss about?”
Just read elseware that if its white & gold to you the efficiency of your retinas is slipping. Your rods & cones are located there & they work together to pick up color & shading. Gees hope that isnt a sign lf ???? Something?
I needto eat more carrots…..fast, I can only see the white &
Gold. (I am notoriously stubborn though)
rickl Says:
February 28th, 2015 at 12:52 pm
It looked blue and gold to me.”
“Mrs Whatsit Says:
February 28th, 2015 at 2:45 pm
I can only see gold and a white that’s a little blue-ish (like white snow in shadow)”
Yes, I agree. Blue/grey like snow in shadow (my exact thought) … looks blue but you know it may not be. Though I do not see white under any circumstances. And, an equally untrustworthy gold/brown. But I don’t see black either.
Has me a little worried. Thought my vision was pretty good. I can usually see into shadows and in the dark pretty well. My tag to kill ratio has been declining …. Oh No!
OK, you guys have convinced me that I am mistaken in my hypothesis that something deeper is going on.
Sometimes an apple is just an apple.
My reaction upon seeing the dress was exactly Mr Whatsit’s “That’s obviously blue and black. What’s all the fuss about?” But I take as a given that you all are sincere, so it is an amazing illustration of a natural phenomena. One I shouldn’t be surprised at given that in my late 20s my brother and I were camping watching a sunset and in response to his wondrous comment at the purple colors, I looked at him and in confusion, said, “what purple colors?”
All I see is a black and blue dress; so, yea what is all the fuss about.
A couple things.
I saw the dress and white and gold, but the article where I saw the dress, Ace of Spades I think, the author said that the dress was white/gold. Neo, I’m guessing that you can see the dress is black/blue because someone pointed out to you that it is black and blue. Think of an optical illusion where you can’t see the effect until somebody points it out, then you can’t miss it.
A picture might be worth a thousand words, but nobody ever said those words had to make any sense. If the dress is black and blue then the picture is overexposed and nobody is getting any accurate information from it.
KRB
I saw white (ok, pale blue) and gold, my hubby saw blue and gray. However, looking at it on my laptop, all I had to do was move the screen to different angles to see both color combinations (at the extreme angles) plus several that were in between the two. The angle from which you view the image matters.
Can’t be bothered with bothers. However, to balance out my apathy, I thought I would include someone who seemed to get the notion deeply under his skin.
Only for you, sis. :p
I agree with rickl – blue and gold. I do not see any black. If you are seeing the lighter part as white you are inferring that the photo was taken with a blue filter.
On the internet it looked white/gold but in the newspaper it was obviously blue/black. I don’t know if that is because of the whole CMYK/RGB, subtractive vs additive thing or just because the source of light caused me to be fooled.
Think of an optical illusion where you can’t see the effect until somebody points it out, then you can’t miss it.
Not for me. I have started at it multiple times and the only blue I can see if a faint hint around the edges.
I think it looks better in white and gold anyways.
This is probably one of the silliest internet “phenoms” I have ever seen.
This is not an optical illusion.
These are photographs deliberately manipulated by tinkering with a feature on better digital cameras called the white balance.
It is a feature that allows the camera to produce accurate color rendition under different kinds of light.
Subjects photographed in bright daylight require a different white balance adjustment than those photographed under artificial light or even under cloudy skies.
This adjustability can also be used in reverse to generate inaccurate color rendition, and this what has happened here in three different photographs.
Different colors are seen because the photographer intentionally distorted the images.
El Polacko:
But that’s not the point. The point is that everyone is looking at the same distorted image and calling it a different color. It’s about color perception, not about the real color of the dress.
Color perception is indeed subjective (what is the real color of the dress?) but other commenters make the same point, like Al W above:
“…I don’t know if that is because of the whole CMYK/RGB, subtractive vs additive thing or just because the source of light caused me to be fooled…”
Before digital, light source differences were dealt with by using specific films or filters to warm or cool the light source.
That’s my story and I’m sticking to it.
El Polacko, you’ve misunderstood. The original phenomenon dealt with only one photograph, not three, and there was no intentional distortion. As I understand the story, a mother of the bride (or groom) took a quick photo of the dress she intended to wear to the wedding with her cell phone and sent it to the bride and groom. When they couldn’t agree on the color of the dress in the photo, they posted it on social media to get their friends’ opinions, and the thing went viral. In that single photograph, different observers see different colors.
If you’ve seen three different photos of the same dress, you’re seeing some sort of subsequent tinkering with the original photo. Not the same thing as the original phenomenon.
True, I did see only three different photos side by side, but the more I stewed about it, I also realized that I failed to consider that people looking at the pic were doing it on a smart phone, tablet or computer screen.
The odds of a significant percentage of that equipment having a properly color calibrated screen are between zero and none, which can only add another layer of subjective observation to this distraction.
Now my head hurts.
I think the whole thing is fascinating. When my teenage son (certified colorblind!) showed me the picture on his phone and asked what color I saw, I said white and gold (obviously!) brushed him off. He insisted it was blue and black. At that point neither of us was aware of the viral phenomenon. Later, after seeing more pictures and media coverage (including a better photo of the actual blue and black dress), I found that the original image actually got darker the longer I stared at it. Not sure what that means other than I am possibly very suggestible.
Obviously not everyone perceives the world as I do. Shocking!
Another source of confusion: over at Ace’s place they are saying that Boehner looks orange; I don’t see it, more yella he looks to me.