/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

Couldn't you just use a color picker in PS and call it a day? It literally gives you a color number.

>>1997243
you don't even have to do that, literally just up the saturation or contrast

just why would anyone ever think it's white and gold

I'm like 90% sure that the people that think it's black and blue just have terrible monitors, or very low brightness.

>>1997245
It's supposedly a light trick, where some people with weaker eyes will merge the light with the dress to give the white/gold coloring.
I doubt anyone here will be able to see it, assuming everyone who says they see it isn't just trolling.

>>1997237
I've been staring at this for over a minute trying to see it as white/gold and I just don't see it at all, do those people have their computer monitor color fucked up?

>>1997247
are u jokin

>>1997253
>"I'll fuck with the levels and make it black and blue, that'll totally prove that the original picture is black and blue"
What the fuck are you doing

>>1997256
>Fucking with levels changes the color.
What the fuck are you doing?
There's a white and black dress resting right next to the blue and black one.

>>1997247

apparently someone found the store where this is for sale and it does not come in white/gold, but comes in blue/black

it's definitely white and gold

>>1997256
if the picture was actually white and gold it would not be that blue with that yellow lighting when i fucked with the levels

i'm starting to think the white/gold is a ruse

It's blue and black, the same thing happened to a pair of black sweatpants I took a photo of when they were in front of a window.

>>1997263
now you just made it greyish blue and black

>>1997249
I used to see it as white gold. If you interpret the scene as having a strong backlight, and the dress in the shadow like on a sunny day, then it looks white gold.

After seeing this version I can now see it both ways.

>>1997237
Its gold and white, theres blue light from window shining onto it and the shit camera fucks with colors.

Blue and brown in that shitty photo. But either way, it's actually blue and black.

Holy shit it's like I'm teaching art to fucking 12 year old autists.

ok ive finally fixed my vision - i can now see it as it truly is. the correct color is black/blue however there appears to be some sort of optical illusion going on with the high brightness in the background that makes it appear white/gold in certain conditions.

this image should help you see it the correct way.

>>1997276
Again, white and black dress RIGHT NEXT to the blue and black one. They're touching, and are in the same shade.

>>1997269
no you fucking idiot, the picture is overexposed. someone even found the original dress which is blue and black

blue lighting from a window would not make the dress look like that, the black on the dress has a yellow tint which means it's still the same yellow lighting

i bet you fucking use the eyedropper tool when doing studies

>>1997278
Whoops, meant to reply to this guy >>1997275

I was convinced it was white and gold but actually looking at it for a while I can't see anything except blue and black.

Cool pic OP

>>1997280
Bait detected

here's the answer.

>>1997301
Bullshit.
I stared at the sun for various minutes when I was a child, and my eyes are still perfect.

>>1997301
This post is BS, photo is overexposed, the colors and gold and white. The light from window+ the bad camera make it appear that it is black/blue.
If you were to look at it in real life the colors would show that it is gold and white. Those who see black/blue are just inept at understanding light and how it affects color.

>>1997307
he sees gold and white

>>1997278
Ok faggot, time for a real easy lesson

things in shade generally have a blue tinge to them. landwhale here is holding the dress up and taking a picture. the light isn't from above her, its above and in front of her. the light is properly illuminating the dress on the rack in front of her. if it was on the rack, it would be white and gold.

>>1997261

think of it this way, clothes come in different colors in sets. in this case gold and white sold out before black and blue because gold and white are clearly superior

>>1997311
>>1997314

this is the exact fucking dress, it doesn't exist in white and gold. pls get your eyes checked out then proceed to commit sudoku

>>1997301
This explanation is wrong. Subtractive and additve colors does not happen in your eyes, it happens in the objects. Your eyes capture only light, not pigment. Second, the rods are not red, green and blue, they are long, medium and short wavelenghts and all of the three of them cover all colors, despite one being more sensitive to one then the other. When light hits your eyes, all three send informations and the color you see is an approximation of them.

The problem is not in our eyes and it's also not a matter of eyedropping the pic to see what the colors are separately. The thing is that the relationship between blue and black and white and gold are very similar, one is warmer than the other, one is darker than the other. The perception of the dress as one or the other is more or less the same, saved for differences in monitors and other shit like that which only makes this pic more controversial and viral, but that are not at all that important. You can't see whether the dress is in the light or in the shadow, and what colors are around it, so you can't really tell. Your brain must solve the puzzle in one way or another and so it sticks to a solution and may change it at a different moment much like the spinning woman gif.

This has nothing to do with your retina, but how your brain works with the information it receives. Search on gestalt.

>>1997314
You just made it very obvious that this really was just one big stupid troll. Your explanation is full of assumptions to explain why it could be white and gold, but nothing that solidly explains that it is.

>>1997319
see >>1997317

>>1997321
and any explanation you can give for it being black and blue is more valid?

>>1997264
>pic

>>1997317
wrong and bad troll. the fabric on top is not transparent and the dress doesn't run that low. try harder

it's a black and blue dress that looks like a white and gold dress in the shade because of lighting conditions and the fact that it's a shitty photo

/thread

>>1997325
I know. That answers the question on what color the dress is, but it's not of importance to the question of why people see it differently, which is really what is bugging people.

>>1997237
christ this is everywhere right now. the actual dress is physically black and blue.

>>1997332
you mean its vice versa. things dont look lighter because of shading retard. therefor the lack of light (black) would never look like the addition of light (saturated white)

>>1997264
That pic holy shit, I don't know if I should laugh or feel bad for the dog. Guess I can only hope he actually enjoys tasty food as much as we humans do, or more...

>>1997332
You seem to have made a mistake, I fixed it for you.
It's a white and gold dress that looks like a black and blue dress in the shade because of lighting conditions and the fact that it's a shitty photo

>>1997326
this >>1997317

>>1997331
are you that oblivious about how selling clothes online works??? the model photo of the picture almost never looks like the piece of clothing in real life, ESPECIALLY if it's a cheaply made thing like the op pic. so it's going to be less vibrant and it's going to have a slightly different cut irl, and when it's paired up with a shitty quality phone picture in fluorescent lighting the dress is going to have a faded yellowish tint

also the fabric is absolutely transparent at the top. keep in mind it's basically two layers of that fabric, because it includes the back as well, so it looks a little darker. but it's also why it catches that yellow light so easily, so it gives off a stronger yellow tint

>>1997338
have you ever in your life taken a shitty phone picture?

>>1997326
I don't need to, the white dress next to the blue one is enough. If there's no proof for why 2 white dresses in the same shade would look like they're different colors, then the default argument is that the dress is blue.

Is this that thing where you have two shades of green on the paper and then when you put different red borders around it, you see the difference in the green or something?

>>1997335
>the actual dress is physically black and blue.
Clearly incorrect, you just fell for the ruse.

>>1997343
so your telling me the dress shes holding is under the same lighting as the dress in the background...

ok buddy

>>1997338
you're retarded. let me break it down for you
>it's a black and blue dress
>that looks like
>a white and gold dress in the shade

>>1997345
More or less. But it's more subtle, so it's harder to explain why it happens.

>>1997331
>what is transparent black fabric over transparent black fabric

>>1997348
>darker colors look brighter in the shade
again, ok bud

>>1997352
white is lighter than blue.
gold is lighter than black

white and gold, in the shade, look like blue and black, which are darker colors

>>1997342
Implying the dress in the pic is the same as the black&blue advertised dress.>>1997317

>>1997352
Asshole, he's saying that a white and gold dress in specific lighting and shadow conditions looks like the dress in the pic, which actually is blue and black and is not in those conditions.

>>1997338

Cameras capture light differently than the eye, shutter speed and white balance can vastly change the appearance of a color.

>>1997352
the fabric + the lighting makes it look lighter, r u serious? have u never taken a shitty picture in your life?

I think you're all missing the point. It's not about the color of the actual dress, it's about the colors you perceive when looking at the image.

>>1997349
Coolio

>>1997359
that's actually what's being discussed
>>1997358
>>1997357
>>1997356
>>1997356
>>1997353
follow along

>>1997352

No, but a phone will miscalculate the appropriate shutter speed needed to expose a photograph if it's under shade.

>>1997353
White is not lighter than blue, saturated colors can appear brighter than equally bright white due to the Heimholtz-Kohlrausch effect

>>1997357
Clown, the image is still perceived by your eye even if through the medium of photography

>>1997359
/ic/ is having a legitamite argument for once.
This is exiting but terrifying

>>1997353
exactly what I'm saying. I have no clue why these fuckers cant get this

Fuck this facebook bullshit who gives a flying fuck oh my fucking god holy shit goddamn

>>1997368
Autism gives a fuck

>>1997359
>>1997362
You do realize that what the dress would look like in real life actually has impact on our perceprion of the photo, right?
Its like the Blue/black supporters are babies who havent seen how light/shadow interacts with color.

>>1997365

No shit, but poor photography can alter the potential ways a photo can be perceived.

>>1997372
>>1997317
Are not
>>1997237

>>1997237
i personally find it way easier to make into a white dress than a blue one, but that could be to do with the exposure. (obviously without just messin' with the hue)

>>1997374
it looks like white/gold in the shade, but it's blue/black in the light. it's a shitty photo so it retains a level of ambiguity
see
>>1997372

>>1997372

>>1997377
yes, it is. deal with it. or prove it wrong.

>>1997376
There is not evidence it's a poor photograph

>>1997377
yes they are, especially the first one. it was posted on the saem tumblr apparently. get FUCKED

>>1997382
I cant disprove your autisim. you just have it and it cant be cured

>>1997380
>it looks like white/gold in the shade, but it's blue/black in the light.

It is clearly a white dress in SHADOW, plus the fact the camera was flooded with direct sunlight made it look slightly bluish. It is nowhere near >>1997317 level of blue. It is that dress, but in "ivory" (white).

>>1997385
I bet you buy apple products too you fucking sheep.

>>1997237
anyway i hope this at least tips you "photographs are real" people off.

I don't understand, how the hell are people seeing white/gold?

>>1997383
except for the fact nothing is discernible on the right hand side

>>1997390
see
>>1997380

The dress is actaully a multitude of colors.

>>1997395
>>1997383
literally all the evidence you need is right here >>1997372


>>1997390
fucking see >>1997342

bad, cheap clothing is ALWAYS advertised wrong online

A white dress can look blue if the shading is right, and a blue dress can look white if the light flaring unto it is strong enough.I think the second is more likely to be the case here.

>>1997397
see
>>1997388

>>1997402
I did, I can only guess that whoever posted the gif disagrees but they aren't intelligent enough to explain why

>>1997394
Depends how your brain perceives it.
Due to high light in the background, it's assumed that the visible side of dress is in fact in shadow, and whites in shadow go blueish.

Turns out girl presumably used flash and photo is overexposed. I just never took an overexposed photo like that in my life and I've used some shitty cameras in past.

>>1997399
except it comes in white and the original dress is clearly in the shade and suffering from >>1997376 syndrome

>>1997401
>extremely thin fabric
>the part of the dress where the fluorescent light hits

u aren't proving anything you ugly motherfucker

>>1997401
see
>>1997404
>presumably used flash and photo is overexposed

>>1997383

It was taken on a cellphone, the background is completely blown out which suggests that the object being photographed was dark.

If a phone camera comes across something like this, it usually overexposes the fuck out of the object being photographed. Phones also manage white balance pretty poorly.

>>1997405
does it come in white and gold? there are literally photos of the same women in the same dress on the same night that show it's blue and black.

>>1997405
but it doesn't come in white and gold??? and if it were actually the picture you posted the black wouldn't be yellow tinted while the white is blue tinted. jesus christ

>>1997408
>>1997406
that's the same reasoning >>1997405 is using for why the blue part is white. I don't see how anyone can think the orangish parts are black.

What if the photo was severly edited and originally looked blue&black?
That would prove the "evidence" is the same kind of dress.
However, the one who edited this had a good understanding how light/shadow interacts with color. If the edited version was real, then the dress would look like Gold&white

>>1997403
Or perhaps theres nothing to explain, only to marvel, at how absurd the original comment was.

>>1997412
I was in the same boat an hour ago. I could understand white to blue, but the gold never looked black. then it clicked. you'll come around eventually. it's just a shitty camera photo that blew out the black and made it look gold/yellow ochre

>>1997415
there's nothing absurd about it.

>blue

>>1997419
on an overexposed camera phone photo, and given that's a highlight section?
yes, blue.

>>1997416
>blew out the black and made it look gold/yellow ochre
is that even possible?

>>1997419

>>1997237
Not this shit again.

I want to find that dress and burn it.

I must go, my planet needs me

>>1997424
is not this >>1997317 blue

it is this >>1997376 blue

:)

>>1997424
Blue is a color, not a hue. Blue is 0000FF, not anything that has a blue component, clown

I'm still not seeing the "black"

can someone help me out?

You idiots.

Color is ever shifting and changes given lighting conditions.

>>1997432

>>1997409
here's a correction based on removing blow out, gamma misuse, caused some tearing and stuff in the bg because lots of it was all the way to white.

looks plausible to me.

>>1997428
So then why does the other dress not have the same shade of blue?

>>1997437
oops

>>1997435
>>1997437
Damn, shouldve just waited, I tried making it blue/black aswell

>>1997435
still seeing goldish tint to the 'black' areas. and this just makes it look like a light blue dress, nothing like the other posted

More people need to understand how cameras handle color temperature and exposure. It's totally within the realm of possibility for a dark object to become overexposed to the point of appearing to have a color, or for a dark color to end up looking white.

This picture lost enough color information to end up somewhere in the middle.

>>1997444
>making it blue/black

ok now I am just being trolled, right

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purkinje_effect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purkinje_effect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purkinje_effect

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotopic_vision
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotopic_vision
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotopic_vision
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purkinje_effect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purkinje_effect


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purkinje_effect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotopic_vision
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotopic_vision
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotopic_vision

Watch pic in dark room you FUCKING IDIOTS

>>1997445
Yeah, but it helps.
I couldn't see blue at all before seeing that gif.

Ok, the camera absorbed all the warm colors, and then "colored" the dress wrong, making the black part golden...
Fuck... I just checked the original image. I can see it now. The dress is black and blue, but incredibly overblown, just like my mind right now.

>>1997448
huh?

>mfw I realize this is not just some 4chan shitpost
>mfw It is people literally being retarded about how color/light works

>>1997448
yes, we're past that thank you, now we're having fun trying to work out if it's a blown out underexposed picture of a dark blue dress or a white dress in shadow.

>>1997376
It's clearly not this. Otherwise the other cloth in the image would also be blue.

>>1997237
When I came to this thread, I could not see past the illusion, I was certain the dress was gold and white. I bickered with the others and tought they were bullshitting and trolling. Now however, after having reversed the overblow efffect, I can see, that I was wrong. Even the original image appears different now. This was a great thread. Now lets back to drawing shit.

>>1997346
when I first saw that picture I saw a gold and white dress. after looking at it for a few minutes I now can only see a blue and black dress taken with a shitty camera. The actual dress can be found on amazon and there's several photos of it in different light.

But honestly I'm sick of seeing posts about it. It's all over facebook, tumblr, and now here apparently. It was fun for about 20 minutes but now it's just annoying.
Hiding the thread now and going to go study.

Have fun anons!

cant we all just agree that the dress is ugly as fuck regardless

This conflict is so poethic. The whole internet is in a war, two sides and each one is saying "you can't change my reality, this is clearly what this is and you're wrong!". Both provide strong evidence, from how color works under certain conditions to optical illusions to fucked up screens or fucked up eye biology, and with each thing one side says the other one is having its version of reality being told wrong. It's just a dress, but they defend it like if it was their own life and someone is telling them that they didn't live that life, that what they know is wrong. An internet-wide heated discussion about the color of a dress.

Perhaps it's white and gold in the shadows, or perhaps it's black and blue in a bad camera. How can we know who is right? if the bastard who took the pic told us what color the dress was.

>>1997237

>>1997470
>if the bastard who took the pic told us what color the dress was.
BUT THEY DID
http://www.businessinsider.com/origin-of-white-gold-or-black-blue-dress-2015-2

>>1997473
Oh damn they did, thanks for the sauce Anon. Well that settles it I guess.

...Feels good to be right, the fucking dress WAS black and blue.

>>1997470
It is the same sort of thing with large scale conflict.

I don't even know how to feel about this shit.

>be new here
>sketch/ don't know colours and shit
>see gold and light blue
>have no fucking clue who's right
I'll just make my way back to the sticky

>>1997470

Have you ever been to /vg? People there fight about the waifus they mod into the games as if they were real people. A dress shouldn't surprise anyone.

"Draw what you see, not what you think you see", they said.

>>1997472

If a black object is overexposed it can change color, especially if there are different temperatures of light in the room.

>>1997481
They also said "don't draw from over/under exposed pictures" and "draw from life".

I see a gold/white dress in a blue ambient light setting. If it's an overexposed blue/black, wouldn't it be saturated?

>>1997496

Not really, no.

Take an SLR sometime and play with exposures and white balance. You can get some radically different looking images.

I hope the bride likes the beautiful black ring.

>>1997496
it's underexposed and the gamma is blown out.
here is like an experimental example i just did, that sleeping bag is also a shiny dark blue. i couldn't get it as white lookin' as the dress but it eye-droppers to a very similar color. i thinking using a window was too much light.

that other cloth there is navy blue

>>1997506
http://www.businessinsider.com/origin-of-white-gold-or-black-blue-dress-2015-2

Wedding rings aren't black, anon. But in that same wedding, there's a woman who does like the beautiful blue and black dress she decided to wear.

>>1997517
i did nothing but adjust the brightness up btw, i didn't like tweak this and that to try make it look super white.

>>1997519
I don't get what you're saying, I posted a picture of a flower girl in a deep blue dress.

>>1997525
No, you posted a picture of a flower girl in a white dress under the shadow and not blue, as opossed to OPs dress that actually is blue and not just white under the shadow. It's a fact that the flower girl's dress is white, and it's a fact that if you follow the link you'll get confirmation that OPs dress is blue.

What? you thought the flower girls dress was blue? I don't think so. But, you seriously thought the dress that went viral was white and gold? well you just got royally rused by your own eyes, Anon.

>>1997525
see the photo is over exposed, if you just correct it in photoshop...

this thread is so fucking embarrassing.

you fucking retards actually still believe the dress is white and gold, when the actual (blue and black) dress has been found

fucking cut your hands off you talentless hacks.

>>1997562
this discussion revolves around the theory of why it is blue black

your'e very shallow, anon

http://www.businessinsider.com/white-and-gold-black-and-blue-dress-2015-2
>when you add the three colors the eyes see best, red, green and blue, (not to be confused with primary colors red, blue and yellow)
Jesus Christ, I'm mad.
Red, green, and blue are the additive primary colors. Fucking hell I wish grade schools would stop teaching people this 200 year outdated RBY schlock.

The dress is obviously blue and black. That is not what white and gold fags are arguing about.

Because of the lighting and the shitty camera it was taken with, The colors in the picture appear off white and and goldish. Hues varying on your monitor.

I am a gold/white fag. I KNOW the real life dress is blue and black. The colors in the picture are White/gold.

I didn't read the thread because I already saw too much of this crap on my facebook feed. I really hope people already came to this conclusion.

>>1997405
no. because true white is found in the image

white and gold niggas post your art

this is clearly white and gold

>>1997600
Where did the RBY thing come from anyway? Because of paint?

>>1997605
the thread has just been people who haven't read it coming in and saying "look here you shit artists stuff in the shade looks blue!!!!!!"

no one really has an answer to the interesting question which isn't "what color is the dress really?" but "why do some people see it one way and some another?"

generally everyone should be able to tell that the actual hue is bluish and the lace is brown, but you'd think everyone would also fall for the illusion, we see bluish things in the shade all the time that we know are white. so what's the difference between the two groups eh? do they use different heurisms to determine color? it's interesting.

I understand that this is a viral marketing tactic for #TheDress or whatever the fuck it was but please keep your shit away from /ic/ and 4chan in general.

>>1997619
From the original tumblr poster "I swear to you its no hoax. I saw the dress in real life, it’s blue and black. Some people just see this pic as white and gold. I DONT HAVE ANY ANSWERS BUT I NEED THEM"

Y'all better be shitting me with white/gold

>>1997619
>>1997622
>>1997625
See
>>1997605
>>1997616
and other similar posts in the thread.

white gold masterrace

>>1997314
That would be true, if the photo was taken outside. Shadows gets blue becouse of the light bounced off from the sky. Inside room, light is bouncing off the walls, which have their own color.

its white and gold, you fucking retards, the backlighting is fucking with the shitty iphone camera

>>1997638
Nope it's not. White gets blue in shadow ONLY if the bounced light is blue. Like for example, outside, see this picture>>1997531

But the dress photo was taken inside the room, and it doesn't look like it's painted blue.

>>1997268
At the end of the day though the local color of the original picture is way too blue on parts directly hit by light and on highlights to be interpreted as white. This is kinda black and white, no pun intended.

>>1997639
m8, blue light is the longest and most dominant wave, thats why things appear blue very far away, like mountains and tall buildings. The camera is obviously having trouble coping with the light from the window,

>>1997645

nigga that's just a fuckton of oxygen and nitrogen and shit becoming a filter you tellin me theres enough air and shit in between this bitches dress and this niggas camera to tie dye that motherfucker default windows wallpaper blue nigga i bet you think alizeran crimson is pthalo blue

>>1997646
it has nothing to do with the air between the subject and the camera cunty, mountains are still blue in a vacuum

>>1997648

some mountains*

>>1997648
>>1997655
I would love to see that

It's an overexposed photo. If the dress was white it would have a lot of 100% white areas. Instead it has bleached out blacks. Not sure if this whole thing is a trolling or just stupidity.

Are the black/white fags fucking retarded or is this just some elaborate troll? you can literally just color pick it in photoshop. It's a blue tinted white due to it being in the shadow and a desaturated gold. How is this even a discussion? There is no black in this image.

>>1997639
So even if it was blue, where the fuck do you morons see black? Please open this image in photoshop and color pick the area you think is black.

>>1997674
People are perceiving it as a reflective black dress (which it is), not saying that the color is literally pure black.

>people still arguing that it's white/gold when there was an article that quoted the person who took the picture saying it was blue/black
Guys, there's being determined and there's being stupidly stubborn and you're decidedly in the latter here.

If you look at the photo assuming the dress was simply in shadows your mind mentally adjusts the dress to make it lighter, like the left here. If you assume it's just a shitty over-exposure that washed the colors out then you mentally adjust the dress to make it darker, like the right here. In this case, it was just a shitty over-exposure. It's okay to have assumed otherwise.

>>1997674
You have no idea how color and lighting work. If you overexpose a red and make it look pink it doesn't make the thing not red anymore, it just means your photo has shitty colors.

It's clearly green and purple

You people are fucking retarded. Here's your god damn answer.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/briangalindo/we-may-have-found-the-which-color-is-this-dress-and-its-blue#.xfnKgZEYnD

>>1997681
That's exactly the point you retard. Colors we see are relative and always based on the lighting situation. I don't care what base color this dress has, I am talking about WHAT YOU SEE IN THAT IMAGE. The colors in that image are objectively light blue and a desaturated earthen/ golden color as can be proven by just fucking color picking them.

>>1997681
>You have no idea how color and lighting work. If you overexpose a red and make it look pink it doesn't make the thing not red anymore, it just means your photo has shitty colors.

That's not the question you goddamn idiot. If you showed an photo with washed out red that looked like pink and asked people what color they see, they see fucking pink, because that photo shows a washed out pink, not red.

Sometimes I feel that people like you are genuinely mentally challenged.

>>1997689
>>1997692
What the fuck are you talking about? What relevance do the color-picked colors on a shitty photo have to any possible objective discussion about the dress itself?

Here's my question: in a normal white light, in person, what colors do you think the dress would be? How is that not the question being asked here? We're not painting the damn thing from a shitty photograph, so why would the colors in the photo being tan and periwinkle be relevant other than as relative colors on which to base our understanding of the actual color?

Would you call it a tan and periwinkle dress just because that's the most literal interpretation of the photo rather than using any basic understanding of light and color to acknowledge that it's clearly not tan and periwinkle in natural lighting? I honestly don't understand what the fuck you're going on about with "color pick the area you think is black" because that was never the fucking point

>>1997237
http://www.wired.com/2015/02/science-one-agrees-color-dress/
ok everyone here is your answer

I feel like my brain is being fucked. At first all I saw was white and gold. I was a total white and gold, calling the blue/black people idiots.

But something happened, idk what the fuck happened but my brain broke, now all I can see is black/blue.

Please send help

Here's the real reason people see different colors on the dress:

Fat people with shit fashion sense and low confidence see black/blue because darker colors make you look slimmer and they can't even imagine pulling off the gold/white Aphrodite dress, and so project that on the image.

White/gold fags just see the superior dress because they can't imagine anyone wearing that blue/black atrocity.

Now, clearly the dress is being worn by a landwhale, so it's a blue/black dress.

i don't see colors

i see value intensity hue. And it's always changing. I don't even know my skin color, it's always changing!

>>1997482
if it changes colour then it's of black anymore. the fact the original model is dark blue and black doesn't change the dress in the photo is white and gold.
That's how filters work. If I take a black and white photo of the sky, it make the sky grey in the photo, it's not "blue if you reverse think it, it's effectively grey.
It's frightening to meet people in 2015 with no ability to separate the picture from the model. It's like saying a lolicon manga is the same as raping a kid. Picture != subject of the picture. Never, ever.

>>1997639
> White gets blue in shadow ONLY

or you use a shitty camera, with nearly no colour fidelity because it's cheap and take the picture while the cheap filtering software of said camera is raping everything for the sake of cheap but pleb-satisfying result.
If chroma effect change the palette, you can only accept that new palette, saying it's different just becaue you can filter it back and correct it isn't changing the state of the current picture. this is why
>>1997619
utterly fails to address the point.

>>1997697
>about the dress itself
It never was about the dress itself. That's what the meme buzz is forcing people to believe with the bitch pretending she doesn't "get" why people are seeing it white and gold.
The picture is white and gold. The "lol gotcha the original is back and blue" is irrelevant except for the meme.

>>1997729
The picture is actually periwinkle and tan but people assumed that it was a white and gold dress in shade, which it was not. It was a black and blue dress in overexposed light.

Unless if your point is that you really think that the dress is periwinkle and tan then you're talking out of your ass. Of course the point of the picture going viral was people arguing over which was the true color in natural light, that doesn't make that point less relevant to any subsequent conversation. Quit being absurd.

wow what a stupid thread

Wait, what the actual fuck. I saw it as yellow/white this morning, and now I suddenly see blue/black on OPs picture. Is this something in my brain?

>>1997768
Nobody knows why it happens, there is just idle speculation by armchair scientists. It's not based on any known color illusion, because those like the checker illusion don't switch between 2 different perceptual variants. I'm not sure how to force a change in perception either. Word on the street is, once you go blue and black you never go back.

>>1997772
Now I'm seeing white/gold again...

>>1997714
Not only are you blind, you're also delusional, I'd also wager, gay.

>>1997613
It's just an old theory on how colors could be mixed. Even for traditional media like paint a subtractive CYMK model is much more effective.

Is this really a thing online? Can I get a link of this phenomenas centre or origin? people arguing over this shit.

On this picture it's blue and gold. No Idea what it was in real life. end of discussion

>>1997616
I experimented with my girlfriend who swears by white and gold to see if it was a problem of color differentiation, and therefor a problem of the eye, and she was able to distinguish the colors when they were separated or isolated, which tells me the illusion is coming from how your brain corrects colors.

When you put a neutral gray next to a large amount of a bright color, the grey tends to look a bit like the opposite color to the one next to it. If you have grey next to yellow, the grey will take on a bluish characteristic.

White/gold seers' brains are all over-correcting for the yellow lighting of the photo by assuming the color isn't REALLY blue, it's just a grey that looks blue because of the colors around it.

I want to find the dress and burn it so bad

are you guys really getting this wrapped up over this facebook shit? who cares?

>>1997788
fatasfatass detected
enjoy you're shit taste

You can colour drop all you want, but it's pointless when the photo is completely washed out and taken by a potato in the first place. It's an optical illusion of how your brain interprets relative colours. I've gotten to the point where I can switch between both without issue.
Image related explains it well (not made by me though). The gold argument in the image is a bit moot, since you can interpret the 'black' as a non-shiny brown all the same.

>>1997847
it's done bro. we know.
work out why some people see one and other people see the other and you'll have a contribution.

>>1997847
>It's an optical illusion of how your brain interprets relative colours
NO. It's NOT an optical illusion. Illusions means that color drop would get you black and blue instantly. this is a shitty pho so bad the color balance is white and gold. It's even more blatant in the thumbnail when the averaged colour remove all the nitpicky blue and dark parts.

>>1997847
the problem there is
- the blue black "original" is nowere near close to your base. It's deep sea blue.
- it's not the brain that works bad, it's the result of your alteration that makes it literally whit and gold.
Impressive that even an art board doesn't understand the difference between a subject and the render, and can even understand what an optical illusion is. It's just, sad. the legitimacy of this board is really questionable now.

Who the fuck cares, it's just a dress.
Yall bunch of girlies. Fuck are you boring to talk to.

Ok niggas let me spell it out for you guys. It's a mixture between the camera, your screen, and your brain.

Take the fucking image into photoshop and invert the colors. Wait, what? How can that be? How can gold turn into white? It can't. The only inverse of white is black. THEREFORE, the camera recorded the information as black, even though the exposure is fucked.
Now, if you just lower the EXPOSURE, you'll find the correct colors in a perfectly exposed shot.
Dont mess with levels, curves, saturation, or any other shit.

With the black being distorted to this extent, the blue must change as well. And since the blue is of a different value than straight black, its going to seem white-ish. With this information, its obvious that the camera adjusted the white balance so that anything blue was actually white in the cameras eyes.

Additionally, your knowledge of these colors and how they interact between each other is different per person, so you aren't some special snowflake because you see blue and black or white and gold.

How can you guys not understand simple photography.
I'm disappointed in you /ic/

>>1997506
Fucking Oregon. That man looks old enough to be her grandfather. Why was this allowed?

Bless this goddamn fucking site

Keep this Kardashian syndrome shit off my /ic/.

Fucking troll level over 9000.

It's a mixture of your knowledge of how these colors interact with one another, and how your brain can reconstruct the scene so that it can make the answer be either one or the other.

At first glance, these shirts might seem like they're different shades of blue, but as you continue to look closer at it, you realize that one of the shirts isn't blue. In fact, it's far from it, but because of how I set up the camera, I made it seem like they were similar.
If you want proof that its a different color, take it into photoshop and press Ctrl+I, and you can tell that one of the shirts is different.

Its also partly the idea that people can have knowledge of the same color, but it can look radically different. I believe there's a vsauce video that talks about how the way I see a color can be radically different compared to how someone else sees a color.

Idiocracy: The Movie

>>1997905
>blah-blah-blah
No. Some people are retards. That's all.

I swear to god I see it black and blue now, but white and yellow not even a minute ago

>>1997911

I really really fucking want to see the "white an gold" version of the people seeing it that way, seems so strange to me, feels like i'm missing out.

>>1997237
I propose that it's shitty camera, shitty lighting, shitty photographer, shitty social network troll. There's no way to truly know the original color because who knows what kind of bullshit the photographer did to take this picture.

>>1997911
Go away from /ic/

>>1997915
>>>/pol/41982775

If your mind reconstructed the dress to make you say it is white and gold you are correct.

>>1997237
Here's the original from the site before it was taken down (thank you internet archive).

I swear this must be some thought control conspiracy going on

>>1997237
YOU ARE CANCER

DO NOT POST GOLD DRESS
DO NOT POST IN GOLD DRESS THREADS
IGNORE GOLD DRESS THREAD POSTERS

YOU ARE CANCER

Wow thing thing blew up so much. They even were talking about it on the radio this morning as if it was news.

I've seen it both ways though, usually just the blue/black combo but with the brightness on my monitor all the way up and just happening across the image again I did see it once as white gold, and it was really trippy to see how differently our brain can perceive it.

>>1997905
Is that supposed to be hard? The bottom one is clearly a pink/salmon-y color.

White and gold fags, do some light and value studies stat.

>>1997941
light orange

>>1997945
Yeah, salmon

>>1997237
http://i.imgur.com/SI89xe0.png
that all folks

Today the internet discovered that colors on photos colors depend on camera settings.

I don't really get the argument about the color of the real dress.

C'est ne pas une pipe.

We aren't looking at a dress, we are looking at a PICTURE of a dress. And since that's the case, we can simply colorpick it. By doind so it will be clear, that the colors are brown/light blue (white/gold).

So the white/gold fags are actually seeing it correctly.

Now the real question is, why do people perceive it differently?

>>1997988
>Now the real question is, why do people perceive it differently?
this is also what i need to know. I clearly see it as white/gold

>>1997970
This really misses the point. People are disagreeing about the color of the dress, not the pixels. Wired has a pretty good explanation - pre-conscious visual processing "corrects" for the effect of illumination. Consider for example that if you see someone's face under a red light, you don't see their face *as* red even though the pixels lifted from a photo of the face would be red. In the dress photo, some people's processing corrects the photo one way, some people another way.

>>1997988
>>1998004
Go away from /ic/

>>1998008
why?

>>1998008
yeah, why?

>>1997237

>>1998007
If I see a pale girl in red dress in vivid red light, then I will indeed see both her skin and the dress as 'white'. But if I see the same, except that the dress seems not affected but said red light, and is green, then my guts tell me that it is just a red skinned girl (we're talking about similar situation where the background is hardly visible).

I agree that simply stating, that some pixels are blue and some not does not prove anything, for the discussion is all about perceiving colours, and said pixel model doesn't take for instance camera settings under consideration.
But analysis of entire histograms can in fact tell something. This is one of the was of checking, if a photo is real or shoped (white balance).

>>1998014
>>1998012

because color is the product of light, when you understand that you can come back.

>>1998039
retarded answer

>>1997684
thanks doc

>>1997988
>light blue = white
You are retarded.
The actual color picked colors are desaturated cyan-blue and a dark gold, with an intense fluorescent yellow light in the background.
If your brain interprets that color relationship properly, you see it as a blue and black dress in yellow indoor light, which it is.
White-goldfag's brains overcompensate for the lighting situation by telling them they're looking at a white and gold dress in the shade outdoors. This effect is so strong in some people that they are unable to identify that the blue part even looks blue without isolating the color.

>>1997936
Fuck off, you got that off reddit.

>>1998039
I do understand that but this isn't what my post was about.

The actual dress is blue/black - yes.
It appears as gold/white because of light and shit - yes
the dress in the picture is blue/black - no

we aren't looking at the actual dress. It's not here, but somewhere in some shop.
We are looking at a picture of it - so we can only discuss the colors of said picture. And those are clearly brown/light blue (perceived as white/gold) - you can colorpick them.

So if you see the picture as white/gold, you are actually seeing it right. If you see it as blue/black, then something in you corrects the colors of the image.
This might come closer to the actual colors of the dress but not to the actual colors of what you really see (which is the image on your monitor and not the dress).

>>1997268
So it's just people that have no idea how light affects colour?

>>1998055


see >>1998059

>>1998059
You are provably seeing it wrong.

>And those are clearly brown/light blue (perceived as white/gold)
Focus entirely on the blue area, ie. the color of the sleeves.
Isolate that portion from any other colors and look at just it. You will plainly see that not only is it blue when analyzed, but it now looks visibly blue to you.

Your "interpretation" of the colors is based on your real world understanding of color, and not on the actual image. If you look at the actual image you see desaturated blue and dark goldish brown.

Both white-gold seers and blue-black seers are interpreting the image as a real-world scenario and not an image, white-gold seers are just interpreting it incorrectly.

>>1998064
I've seen it, you are still wrong.

See
>>1998067

You are seeing it wrong, thinking about it wrong, and arguing it wrong.

>>1998067
>Isolate that portion from any other colors and look at just it. You will plainly see that not only is it blue when analyzed, but it now looks visibly blue to you.
That's what i said.

The actual color of the "white" part is light blue and the actual color of the "gold" part is brown/darkish gold

So only if you see those colors, you see the image correctly.
And by writing this, i notice, that i made a mistake.

BOTH sides actually are wrong and adjust the colors. Because as we both agree the picture is neither black/blue nor white/gold. It is light blue/brownish.

So one side adjusts the colors to white/gold (closer to the actual colors of the picture) and the other side adjusts them to blue/black (closer to the actual colors of the dress).
Now the question is why, but unfortunately noone has an answer to that.

>>1998069
I think you still don't understand my point.

>If your brain interprets that color relationship properly, you see it as a blue and black dress in yellow indoor light, which it is.
This is what i'm having a problem with. Because the brain interprets the color - as you said.
And that's the point: If you interpret the color, then you will see it wrong. The interpretation might be good to find out the correct color of the dress, but that isn't what we're looking at. The dress isn't here. We are looking at a picture.
And this picture is neither blue/black, nor white/gold.

If you take a picture of a white sheet of paper, which is in a red light, you wouldn't argue that that picture is actually white. Because it isn't.

>>1998078
>So one side adjusts the colors to white/gold (closer to the actual colors of the picture)
This is why you are unable to understand what is being discussed. To you, the blue looks white, and while you have accepted that it is "technically blue", you are operating under the assumption that it was closer to white, and therefore you were never wrong. The blue is closer to blue than it is to white. It is very visibly blue when you isolate the color, and much too dark to be ever considered white. If you were to say it looked like bluish grey you would be much closer to correct, but you are saying it looks white. The white conclusion comes from your brain interpretting the image as a white and gold dress in the shade outdoors.

>Now the question is why, but unfortunately noone has an answer to that.
This is also wrong. There is an answer, it's " your brain does not have a very good understanding of color relationships and is overcompensating for a photo with awful white balance.

>>1998087
I understand that.
The guy I was responding to was saying that the blue in the image was actually white, which is an interpretation of the blue that is present. Blue-black seers are both closer to the reality of the dress and the colors displayed on their monitors.

>>1998090
>There is an answer, it's " your brain does not have a very good understanding of color relationships and is overcompensating for a photo with awful white balance.

Prove it. Everybody is to do that one color test and write down their results plus what color they see the dress in.

http://www.xrite.com/custom_page.aspx?pageid=77&lang=en
I got 0 and I see it as gold/white in shadow.

The longest theard in ic is this... I salute you all for your creativity and critique, you may all proceed to 420 flame it no zoom.

>>1998093
That guy was actually me as well. Maybe i worded that weirdly but i was never trying to say, that the color is actually white. But that it is only perceived as white, while actually being light blue.

>>1998090
>>1998093
Maybe i'm wrong on that part, but i assumed that light blue is closer to white, than to dark blue - and brownish closer to gold, than to black.

Which leads me to another part entirely...

Let's clarify some things: If i look at the picture i see the colors gold and light blue/grey. I never saw a pure white. It looks like it's a white dress in a shade.
So... what are YOU exactly seeing? Do you see it, like pic realted? I.e. are the colors a really dark blue and a true black? Because that's what i'm assuming and why i consider a light greyish blue to be closer to white, than to a dark navy blue.

And after i'm done writing all this shit, i look back at the original picture and see it as blue/black now... and notice, that i colorpicked too close to some fucking highlights. So i assumed, that the actual colors are lighter, than the the really are...
Disregard my other posts (and the first part of this one) - i'm too stupid to colorpick and i suck cock.

Also i can anwer my own question now (i think)

The dress doesn't look like pic related to you, but like a really washed out version of it, right?

>>1998099
The problem is not your color vision. Your eyes are fine, it's your brain that is interpreting things incorrectly.

I hate this world I want out

>>1998121
I white dress in the shade would only look blue outdoors, with the ambient light of the sky reflecting in the shadow.
I see a poorly whitebalanced photo of a blue dress in a room with fluorescent yellow lighting.

>>1998128

Shit, I'm not seeing it as anything BUT white and gold. I've focused my ass off hoping that it may change...but to no avail.

:)

>>1998133
That's because it is white and gold, the reason why you are seeing this bullshit on the news is because they are distracting you from something that is currently taking place maybe it's the net neutrality fiasco that people are not aware about or maybe this is some social experiment and the government is checking in to test your perception of reality and see whether or not they can alter it to their own liking and test that to whatever extent.

Wake up sheeple

>>1998140
>>1997936
Damn too late

>>1998142
Well I'll be damned.

It's a shitty dress made of shitty fabric in florescent lighting taken on a bad phone that overexposed it. Think about it this way: in what store would the lights be dark enough that light coming in through a window would be able to successfully back-light the dress to that level? What kind of store would that be? I can only imagine finding that dress in either a thrift shop or department store, both of which have ample lighting.

For that matter, have you ever seen a dress with gold lace? I WISH that the dress was white and gold, it looks amazing white and gold, but it is simply a shitty blue and black.

Maybe people see it as white and gold because they have nothing to compare the gold to make it seem black? There is no "black" in the original image, and there's nothing suggesting that the gold IS black.
Same goes for the blue color, sure it is blue, but it's at a value so grey that our brain is comparing it to the reflected light in the shadowed areas of a white object. Some people's brains may realize that light can change the appearance of a color, so their brain can look through the light and see "black". Thats my guess.

>ITT

When you start to question your own memories, perception and realities they have power and control over you.

>>1998171
>>>/tumblr/

>>1998142
This is so crazy I can believe it.

Only valid answer you should all use as artists:

The local color of the dress is white and gold, but the color of the light makes it look blue and "black".

>>1998188
other way around bud

isin't just the lighting placement which makes it seem blue?

>>1998202
exactly people fuckin makin a big deal out of nothing

What color is this triangle?
Black or white?

>>1998205
They're trying to test you and make you question what you believe is true and whether or not accept a lie that is propagated by everyone else.

>>1998216
It's four squares with two red ones and two white ones.

>>1998202
The problem is that it would only have the blue shadow outdoors, and for it to look that blue it would have to be white balanced, which judging by the background, it isn't either of those.
Also the black stripes would be less saturated gold if it were a blue shadow on gold stripes, and there would not be the kind of drastic highlights you see on the material.

>>1998225
The problem is that dress is blue/black and looks like blue/black. That's all. No science. 2+2 = 4

>>1998228
Well yeah, but a lot of people see it as the situation on the right, which I am explaining is an interpretation that contradicts the evidence.

>>1998231
>but a lot of people see it as the situation on the right,
A lot of people thinks Sun rotates around the Earth.

>>1998236
I'm not defending their position, anon. I'm explaining why they're wrong.

>>1998231
yeah it is entirely possible for it to be the situation on the right in this picture >>1998202 however only outside and in the shadow of a building. Granted the yellow would peer through like >>1997847 middle top 4th from left


However the original was shot in a department store bright hot lights jewelry makeup. And point is moot, dress is blue and people get a science lesson about light and color. Only legit painters see it better than everybody.

>>1997237

It is colorpicked to light blue and gold/brown, what is the argument? Those are the actual colours that the photo gives us.

>>1998202
The image was clearly over exposed to shit.
It is black and blue lit by a yellow light.

still can't make my brain to interpret it as a blue/dark brownish

>>1998293
of course it is
it's just to clearify where the white/gold people such as myself come from

>>1998320
Nice, this is the first pic that lets me switch between the 2 modes deliberately. I was stuck on black/blue for the past 24 hours, but now it's white/gold after focusing on the right version. Somehow didn't work with the illustration further up.

>>1997945
>>1997941

WOT

I'm seeing a teal kinda colour

>>1998228

The dress in reality is blue/black, the dress in the image that is actually being discussed is light blue/goldish brown.

>>1997955
>using semantics to suggest you originally meant the light orange definition of salmon and not the pink one
kek

>>1998060
This, fucking this. Anyone who has studied traditional painting learns this simple truth from the start.

Let's all just sit back and watch the plebs lose their minds as they question their own subjective experience.

>>1997237
Can anyone explain to me how the fuck anyone's seeing black?
Black has no fucking colour, at the darkest that's a dark brown how the fuck do you possibly see it as black

Even >>1997253 is still not black

>>1998382
It's really strong yellow artificial lighting

>>1998391
>It's really strong yellow artificial lighting
yea but do you really think normalfags would think about that?

>>1997317
Dear god the world is full of fucking idiots. Here you can actually show them proof that the dress IS blue and black, has never been made as gold and white, and they STILL will tell you the dress is gold and white. They'd rather believe their lying eyes than accept the reality.

>>1998418
You really dont understand the white/gold argument, do you? Nobody is saying that the DRESS is white/gold

It. Is. Fucking. Blue.
I can't comprehend how anyone could think it's white, there are damn white clothes exactly behind it for comparison.

>>1998425
There are some people who do think it's actually white and gold, hopefully nobody left in this thread, but you can see when that post was first made a few people still weren't willing to let it go. I get that now people are discussing the optical illusion of it (not that I can see it as anything but blue and black) but there were people who were saying the dress itself was white and gold and even now, somewhere out there, someone still is.

>>1998427
Light blue, yes, but not black.

>>1998433
That's because of the yellow light hitting on it, see >>1998202

>thread hidden

>>1998435
>>1998435
Which is totally irrelevant

>>1997237
First I saw as white and gold some hours ago, now it's black and blue.
[/spoiler]maybe it's because I left my dark room for some time.[/spoiler]

>>1998447
No, it's relevant if you take the yellow lights into account.

>>1998463
Oh shit, ok I understand now that it must be blue/black, but for some reason I can't see it
Am I retarded?

>>1998463
>>1998463
So the brown goldish blobs you painted are supposed to be black? again, i think you misunderstand the argument.

>>1998475
Could be because of the monitor etc. You're not retarded, but it's obvious it's blue if you think about it.

>>1998478
>So the brown goldish blobs you painted are supposed to be black?
Yes. We're on /ic/, I expect you to understand how lights work.

>>1998475
The dress is in shadow, probably facing away from the light.
Little direct "diffuse" light reaches it, so it is dark. The image is then over exposed to compensate.
They makes it look less saturated, making the black fabric look slightly yellow because of the reflected light.

It's simple as shit and I have no doubt it is some media distraction device.

>>1998486
And i expect you to understand that brown is not black.

>>1998493
Oh boy here we go again. Do you even shade?

>>1998493
Yeah you obviously don't understand how lights work.

Still completely irrelevant

>>1998499
Learn how colors work and learn how quoting works.

>>1998493
It ain't made from fucking Vantablack.

I wonder why some people perceive it as white and gold rather than black and blue? I read this here:

>He even speculated, perhaps jokingly, that the white-gold prejudice favors the idea of seeing the dress under strong daylight. “I bet night owls are more likely to see it as blue-black,”

Part of me believes that people who see white and gold don't know jack shit about how color works. Those who continue to argue that it's white and gold despite evidence to the contrary are idiots.

If you're seeing this as white/gold, the easiest way to get yourself to see it as blue/black is to squint your eyes. If you squint your eyes enough to force an extreme value contrast it should shift into blue/black. If that doesn't work then try crossing your eyes, should give a similar effect.

>>1998463
Didn't notice before those cow spotted clothes: they seemed like wood ornaments or something to me.

Once noticed blue colored dress becomes obvious.

The image is clearly closer to white/gold (or blue gold/blue brown) than to black and blue, so who cares what colour the actual dress is? It's totally irrelevant to the image we're seeing.

>>1998787
I think that it's relevant for this board. If you can't tell what are the actual colors in a picture affected by golden light, then how do you expect to shade for shit? Use your brain, not just your eyes.

>>1998787

See? The actual dress might have black on it, but who cares? The image doesn't, it has no black anywhere.

>>1998792

There's no way to tell what colour it is... It's only known because people found out what the actual dress was. There is literally no black anywhere on the original picture. I just proved that.

>>1998796
No because >>1998463 shows that colors work relative to each other. Plus I've seen many yellow lighted pics in my life and many shitty phone pics to be able to tell. I don't give a fuck if someone "found the original dress" because the picture was OBVIOUSLY blue to me from the beginning.

Again, use your brain, not just your eyes. It's like you're not even on /ic/.

>>1998798

>Obviously blue to me

Who cares? The image looks white/whiteish because that's what colour it actually is... IN TH PICTURE. There is literally no illusion or anything strange about this.

>>1998801

See? White is clearly the closest in the original image, and there is absolutely no black anywhere. Everyone who "sees" black and blue is a liar or a retard. Pick one.

Nobody can "see" black, assuming it is black because you know how bad cellphone pictures work is not the same as "seeing" a black, there is no black to see.

>>1998801
Lurk more and git gud, you won't learn how colors work if you keep that attitude. You might as well go and use the color picker on pic related and tell me that it's a brown mustard man, when you know he's not. Light affects the objects and you should learn something from it instead of trying to sound cool while saying bullshit like "b-but the color picker disagrees, it's not black black".

Grow the fuck up, there's almost no picture with actual pure black in the first place.

>>1998805
By the way stop using the retarded edited picture as reference. If there's any reason this whole thing made me invest so much time in it, it's because blind retards like you can't tell colors apart.

>>1998807

No... he isn't that colour but that's the colour I see... I don't pretend to see a more realistic flesh tone because I know that it's actually closer to reality. We're talking about what people see, nobody "sees" any black of any sort in the original image, whether you know it's black, think it's probably black you still can't "see" any fucking black. Period.

>>1998813
Nah you're just mentally impaired.

>>1998815

Good argument. You can't see black, that's it.

>>1998815

Durrrr, I can see black even though there is empirically no black.

lmao this entire thing is some marketing test to see how gullible people are. Everyone who "sees" black is literally just a gullible retard who thinks that's what he's supposed to say.

>>1998820
Man I kinda feel bad for you. I think you're losing your time on /ic/ if you think that black means just #000000, I don't even know how you ended up here.

>>1998825

It doesn't look black at all, to anyone. That is the point. It clearly looks like some sort of yellowy, brownish gold. Whether it is black or isn't doesn't matter, the discussion is about what you see. People who say they see black are lying and wrong, and people who say that the dress IS black are right, the two statements are entirely different.

>>1998827
No one said they "see" black though, just that it's easy to understand by paying attention to the general picture.

>>1998830

Lots of people say they see black, that's the issue. Why would anybody argue about an obviously fucked picture being a different colour? Of course the colour is wrong, look at the background. Acknowledging that doesn't mean you see black however.

>>1998835

I think black/blues doesn't understand the white/gold argument that the picture is closer to white/gold (which has been proven, just like that man in the picture above actually has "mustard" coloured skin in the picture), that is the only reasoning I can think of. Either that or their monitors are wrongly adjusted, or their rods are all fucked up.

White and gold people are literally retarded. You should be taking cues from the color of the black and white dress you can see and the bottom left, or the blacks from whatever that is in the mid far right. There are no darker tones than those blacks in the picture and as they all have the warm tint to them it should be obvious the whole picture is bathed in a warm orange light.

I hope this proves something to you white & gold idiots. I took a piece of black fabric and photographed it indoors with warm lighting and then outdoors (it's overcast so not much blue light but it still proves the point)
In warm lighting it looks brownish/gold if you were to use color picker, but obviously it's black and tinted by it's surroundings.

>>1999052

"taking cues" , "warm orange light". You are so clearly the one that is retarded.

>>1999064

You are so clearly missing the point that it is embarrassing.

PS. I color picked that and I got only shades of gray, no brownish gold.

>>1998727
Tried it, couldn't get it to shift, mate.

>>1999064
>>1999052

No, you are literally retarded. The point is not what base color this dress has, but what color you SEE in the photo. Regardless how those colors are skewed due to blown out lighting etc.

The colors of the dress in this photo are FACTUALLY blue and gold. There is no discussion to be had, just color pick them, they ARE blue and gold. What the true base colors of this dress are is not the goddamn question, it never was.

Do you see black and blue on the right side of pic related?

>>1999122
No obviously i don't see black and blue on those color swatches. it appears a brownish gold hue but in the context of the picture where every other dark shade has the same tint it's obvious that it is infact black, it just appears that way because it's influenced by the ambient light.
Like in pic related, the walls are white, and you can see that. But in this context they appear a light shade of green because they are illuminated by the bright green part of the wall.

>>1999127
edit, i do see blue in the swatches

also it's not factually blue and gold. The real dress has been found and it is black and blue

I swear it was white and blue yesterday....and now it's gold, what kind of sorcery is that?

>>1997455
same here. the internet should died for at least 10 years so people get into hobbies like photography and understand what happens when you take a picture with a potato and it's overexposed. to all people, those who say it's black, they know it looks some what brown but that it's because they realise the picture it's fucked up so they answer what it supposed to look like and not what it appears in the picture.

>>1999131
>also it's not factually blue and gold. The real dress has been found and it is black and blue

Holy shit are you seriously this fucking dumb? The colors are factually gold and blue IN THE FUCKING PHOTOGRAPH. You can COLOR PICK THEM in any drawing software of your choosing. Once again, it DOESN'T MATTER WHAT THE TRUE BASE COLOR OF THE DRESS IS. That is NOT the question. The question is WHAT COLORS DO YOU SEE IN THIS GODDAMN PHOTOGRAPH. The answer is FACTUALLY blue and fucking gold. Yes, I'm mad.

People who see black and blue don't have trained eyes. They see what their brain thinks it should look like. People who see light blue and gold have trained eyes and can observe what is actually there, instead of what they think should be there. I'd wager that most good artists see it as light blue / gold whereis most people with untrained eyes see it as black and blue.

>>1999178
>>1999191
for fuck sake im not stupid. I can see that when you pick the colours they are light blue and grey.

I could bring a white ball into a red room it would appear red because of the lighting. BUT it would still call it a white ball. It's still white after all.

I thought what we were trying to determine was what we see as the true colour of the dress in this situation. I see the colours you are pointing out but in the context of this photo it appears that the dress would be black and blue in netural lighting.

>>1999134
And now I see it blue again what the serious fuck seriously

> everyone getting mad
> used to think it was gold and white, but never noticed the white dresses in the background, now see the light
> urrybody gettin mad
> mfw all these mad nignogs have helped me understand bounce light and local color better than ever

>>1999122
>>1999064

Yesterday, my friend tried to prove a point and had me stare a blue screen for a bit. Then I looked back at the dress. Suddenly, the black and blue dress turned white and gold. No matter where I saw that photo—mac, pc, or phone—the color of the dress was white and gold. Even in >>1998793 >>1998805 the dress on the far right seemed like a white and gold dress in the dark. None of the dresses appeared to be black and blue anymore.

They told me that they were able to train their eyes to focus on a color and then stare back at the image and their eyes would auto correct themselves to adjust to a white/gold dress to a black/blue one. Basically, staring at blue for a long time would make the dress in the photo appear to be white and gold, but staring at black for a while would revert the colors back to black and blue. This did not work for me as no matter what other color I tried to focus on all I could see what a white and gold dress. When I went to sleep and woke up I was finally able to see a blue and black dress again.

I don't know what this means for all the people who saw white and gold though. I know that there are some color blind people, but I don't know if some people are more susceptible to different types of wavelengths of light than others.

>>1997248

>weaker eyes

No. It has to do with peoples interpretation of the question. When I was asked what color the dress was I assumed the person wanted to know what color the dress was in real life under normal lighting. I gave the answer white and gold because based on the photos exposure the corrected colors would in fact be white and gold under proper lighting

Some people thought the question was literally asking what color the shirt is in that exact photo regardless of the exposure and they saw it as blue and black.

Now before you start saying "der der the dress is blue and black, so correcting for exposure to white and gold is wrong" you have to realize that the picture is shit and there was no way for anyone to really now just how over exposed or under exposed it actually was. The bright light in the background tells our brains that it is most likely very over exposed and since we are normally used to seeing things in daylight our brains account for that.

>>1997237
ive always seen it as light blue and dark brown/orange

>>1999191

Other way around. A good artist should recognize that the dress is black and blue, but will also recognize how the lighting in the image makes it look white and gold. So yes, they will see white and gold, but they should be able to recognize it as actually being black and blue.