Which rectangle is darker?
Whichever one has a harder time finding a place to stay on Airbnb.
13 Likes
5 Likes
But the actual dress seen in more usual lighting isnât really whitish at all, but a reasonably full blue. So if you interpreted it as a kind of off-white instead, I think you can appreciate why others were confused into seeing it as even whiter still.
2 Likes
That top one if one of my favorites ever.
I assume they still teach this stuff in design school. What colors and shades one sees is greatly affected by what is around it.
2 Likes
Right, but thatâs not what a person should be seeing. The picture was so washed out and so unnaturally saturated that it was effectively color altered.
It was more like seeing a photoshopped image, once people saw the real dress then the arguments startedâŚbut that wasnât a natural situation and nobody saw those images through human eyes.
Many people, including myself, saw it as obviously a blue and black dress long before the catalog photo surfaced. The arguments started long before then, too.
1 Like
Youâre having a conversation that we are not.
Edit: The question is not âWhat color are the pixels in this photograph of a dress?â The question is âThis is a photograph of a dress that exists in the real world; what color is that dress?â The answer to that question is âblue and blackâ whatever you do to the photo.
It sounds like the reason you donât understand why the dress confused so many people is that youâre supposing nobody could have been able to see as what it actually proved to be. But thatâs a mistake. There were arguments from the beginning.
For the record, I see your second dress as a solid pink with dark red-purple bands, but I donât think itâs actually analogous because the ambient cues work differently. Those are important in how people perceive the color of objects. The illusion is that some people interpreted them one way, and some another. Neither is inherently more proper, any more than you should see vases or faces in the figure-ground illusion.
You can count me as another person who never saw the original dress as anything but a badly washed photo of blue-and-black, from before there were any others. Youâre not actually going to tell me I wasnât seeing things the way I should just because I interpreted it as was what it was really an image of, are you?
1 Like
The first pictures were JUST of the white/gold image. The second image was modified from the first.
Nobody should look at the first image and say that is a blue and black dress. It is (accidentally) photoshopped for all practical purposes
It wasnât an illusion, it was the brainâs proper use of the image data that, due to a technological failure, was presented improperly. That white/gold image was not what a human eye would have seen in any circumstances where it was not also aware it was temporarily damaged.
So, with the second image added didnât add a layer to the illusionâŚthe brain still knows a blue black dress canât look gold and white under any circumstances in which we can process an image, but a white gold dress can look blue and black in darker lighting.
The only people with normal ocular systems who should have thought blue black were possible were either those who knew the original photo was broken and were aware that the original photographer took a picture of a blue and black dress or those who are experts with digital photography and/or false color imagesâŚhow else did you reconcile the first image with it?
Itâs not an illusion, itâs the proper response for the brain to an image that cannot exist inreal world consitions without pain or obvious unnatural lighting providing other cues
Iâm afraid I donât know what to tell you. That initial washed-out photo was obviously a picture of a blue and black dress from the first moment I saw it, and I was (and remain) unable to see it as white and gold. I do have some experience with photo editing, but Iâm certainly not an expert; it just looks like a washed-out photo of a blue and black dress to me.
Iâm sorry?
4 Likes
Donât you have good photographic skills? I couldâve sworn you had a knack for such things .
I mean I guess I could have said it better, youâre right. I should have said that âregular folkâ were completely right to not override what the brain says, and somebody who knows broken/damaged images could have concluded that it was a very washed out image and overriden that natural processing.
I still see it as the equivalent of a false color image thoughâŚnot an illusion.
Itâs been 'shopped. I can tell by the pixels.
Weâre agreeing, actually!
Most people have very little or no familiarity with image manupulation (I have one within the nearest five rows of cubes on my floor at workâŚI only half count)
Those people should just follow their brainâs cues, right?
The only people I knew who saw blue/black or blue/brown were the ones with photographic or image manipulation skills, because they added another layer of processing.
I actually sided with the normies. I got that it was oversaturated (though I saw blue/brown), but not with my brainâs natural processesâŚit was an override of sorts (and mine wasnât as good as yours obviously)
I ended up deciding I lost that argument ⌠so this is a bit weird. My local people all saw exactly the same thing and I had decided that I was all elitistâŚI think I still agree with them though.
I think maybe a better way to say it is âsomebody expecting the image to be something their eyes can seeâ should follow the cues and see white/gold because that is an impossible way to see a blue/black dress in the real world. (Without your brain going âholy shit, my eyes are overwhelmedââŚa cue that does not exist here)
Somebody treating the image like a broken photo could see the blue/black one could be one possible correct image that would create the first.
Edit: hereâs a big thread on exactly that!
AlsoâŚdo you guys actually see black in the original image? I donât understand why anybody would see that as black and Iâm seeing that echoed. Where did you get blue/black from without being prompted? (I get the blue, since there definitely is some)
I think that would be⌠your Mom.
I did a screen capture of the checkerboard illusion so I could directly compare the shades A and B⌠whoa! Youâre twistinâ my melon, man!
A bathtub full of liverwurst.
It was being viewed on a wide range of monitors including old CRT ones, IZGO displays, OLED displays, IPS and probably older LCD technologies as well. They have a wide variety of gamuts and color temperatures. Another factor is the gamma curve - because most displays can only show 8 bits per color, a range of 0:255, they cannot show the full brightness range available to the eye and brightness gets compressed.
I first saw it on a calibrated display set to noon sunlight and there was no problem at all seeing it correctly.
I think too that the rectangles will look different according to the quality of the display, with poorer displays giving a more blocky appearance to the shading.
1 Like
