You must log in or # to comment.
ARE YOU FR? WHO REMEMBERES THIS? IS THIS A SARCASTIC POST??? SAY SIKE OP
everyone’s wrong, gold and baby blue
I love the way everyone was saying it was white and gold.
Until the science came out.
And everyone claimed to have always seen blue and black.
What science lol.
The pixels are light blue and gold.
The dress itself is dark blue and black.
But the pixels side with the white and gold team. They are seeing the pixels as they appear. If you see blue and black your subconscious is over-riding the objective reality of the pixels (and guessing correctly what colours the original dress is).
Imagine falling for the most obvious bait possible.
“What science”
Proceeds to explain the science
Is that the question though? Sure the dress is blue/black but the photo itself is light ass blue (white) and gold.
I dont care about science or the true color. The question is the photo. Included all the color changes and whatever. Call it light blue and gold thats fine but no black.
Take the filter off, yes it’s the actual color but thats not the question.
Fun fact: I can see both.
Some times when I look at it it’s blue and black. Some times when I look at it it’s white and gold. I can make them flip back and forth.
Altering perception is cool.
I see it obviously blue black, but I have some specific accessibility related colour filters on my screen that might influence this.
The blue of the dress is pretty obvious, the black details are a different, golden hue due to ambient light. I “know” it’s black, but it looks dark gold
ITT: people telling other people they’re trolling rather than accepting that humans can perceive reality differently, and the own perception is never objective.
It is interesting it’s only the black and blue people who don’t seem to get it and get emotional over it.
Probably bcos the white and gold people are strictly wrong and it’s incredibly obvious to black and blue people but for some reason there’s a stupid debate because some people are bad at looking at things?
That take only works if you ignore how visual perception actually works. White and gold viewers aren’t wrong—they’re seeing the same pixel values as everyone else, but their brains interpret the lighting differently. The photo has no clear cues about illumination, so the brain fills in the blanks. Some people assume shadow or cool lighting and perceive the colors as lighter, others assume warm light and see them as darker. Both are valid perceptual outcomes given the ambiguity. But here’s the kicker: the actual pixel values in the image are pale blue and a brownish gold. So in terms of what’s literally in the image, white and gold viewers are actually closer to the raw data, regardless of what color the physical dress is in real life. The idea that black and blue people are just “right” misses that distinction completely. What’s especially funny is how often that group doubles down like they’ve uncovered some grand truth, when in reality, they’re just less able—or less willing—to grasp that perception isn’t about facts, it’s about interpretation. It’s like watching someone shout that a painting is wrong because it’s not a photograph.
Ig what you’re failing to understand is that since I, ykno, interpret the lighting correctly? I know I’m right? And everyone that’s wrong is… Bad at looking at things.
If the question were literally referring to the pixel color codes, I wouldn’t argue. But the question refers literally to the physical dress.
Can you explain why people see the lighting differently?
It’s not though, it’s about the picture. We don’t have access to the dress only a digital representation which objectively is a very pale blue and brown, not black and blue.
I gave some of the reasoning as to why this happened in my original comment, but given you’ve doubled down on ‘interpreting the lighting correctly’ and that people are just ‘bad at looking at things’ I guess it’s a bit above your pay grade.
Sorry, forgot to clarify in my last post:
How, exactly, is the lighting ambiguous? The entire picture is covered in golden light.
The image has a strong yellowish tone, but there’s no clear source of light, no visible shadows, no specular highlights, and no environmental cues like windows or lamps. The background is a blown-out mess of overexposure, and the lighting direction is totally unclear.
Some people’s brains interpret that yellow cast as warm lighting falling on a blue and black dress. Others interpret it as cool shadow across a white and gold dress. That’s why it’s ambiguous — the image lacks the kind of contextual clues we usually use to judge lighting. What you see as a scene bathed in golden light is your brain choosing one of two plausible explanations and running with it.
If the lighting were actually obvious, this would never have gone viral.
Nonononono, you are wrong. The question has always been “is this DRESS this color or this color?” NEVER EVER has the question been "Is this PICTURE of the dress this color or this color?
I doubled down on… being correct? I mean. That’s what happened. I interpreted the lighting correctly. So… go ahead and argue against that?
What do you mean you gave your reasoning? You’re talking about how you explained how some people interpreted the lighting incorrectly because they are bad at looking at things?
It is a picture of a dress. It’s not a real dress. It’s a digital representation. Any question posted alongside it is regarding the digital representation obviously as it is not a real dress in front of us.
You doubled down on lacking the depth to understand what’s actually going on and why you cannot see the true pixels displayed when others can.
Well, except, there is an objective perceivable reality. And we all see it. If you saw the dress in the correct lighting, you wouldn’t have trouble discerning the color unless you had a malformed perception in the first place.
No this is exactly incorrect. We do NOT perceive objective reality. All perception is subjective, and then goes through a further filter of interpretation. If someone says something is blue, there is no guarantee they perceive it the same as someone else. On top of societal pressure itself being able to change perception.
This is why in every scientific endeavor we try to take humans out of its as much as possible.
Right, we may not perceive objectively, but there is an objective reality and it is perceivable.
The reality is that this dress is blue and black.
If you see it as white and gold, either there is a lighting issue manipulating your perception or your perception is malformed in the first place.
Your eyes should be automatically accounting for the exposure and you should be perceiving this objective reality correctly. If you aren’t, you are objectively wrong, and so is your perception.
Hope that clarifies for you!
Do you realize we could both look at a red surface, both call it “red”, but for me it may look like blue looks to you? We would never know, because we grew up pointing at something and calling it red.
You are calling it “malformed perception”, but thats exactly my point: ALL perception is malformed. Humans are not capable of perceiving objective reality and the belief that we can is an issue at the root of many of societies problems.
Right, so why does what you just said matter, exactly?
You do know that we know the scientific reason for why we see what colors, right? And that we can check things to determine what color they are because of that?
So… again… that doesn’t matter. There is an objective reality. We might not perceive that reality the same or in an objectively correct way, but we do tend to perceive it in a CONSISTENT way.
The people that are wrong about this aren’t wrong because they “see different colors” because of some “subjective perceived reality”. That’s not how it works. If that were the issue, it would be indiscernible and unknowable. Because we would have no idea that we are seeing different things. People know they’re seeing different things, and we can explain why (like I already did. It’s lighting). Context is an important part of perceiving, ykno.
“humans can perceive reality differently”, yea, that’s true, but the thing with the dress picture is that it’s so obvious that there is a bright white light, that people doesn’t see it, like, never in it’s entire life have ever use a flashlight or somelight like that and see how shuch kind of light can get colors brighter. We have the sun, damnit. If the light in the picture were more blue or purple like, the dress would be more darker, BUT! if the dress were actually white and golden/yellow,with the light said before, would be getting the same result, but it’s not the case.
“humans can perceive reality differently”, yea, but this is not of one cases
I found this image to be a really good way to distill the issue down into the two different modes or perception:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_dress#/media/File:Wikipe-tan_wearing_The_Dress_reduced.svg
I only see white and gold, I don’t understand the blue black folks.
10 years? No way
Here’s a pretty good Slate article on this dress, and how important this image became:
https://slate.com/technology/2017/04/heres-why-people-saw-the-dress-differently.html
When I look at the image attached to this post, I can’t see anything but white and gold, as I always have. This, in spite of now knowing it’s black and blue.
For your information : the dress is really blue and black, according to the store and manufacturer. The vast majority of people see it as white and gold, but I personally think most people are not used to decrypting overexposed pictures, hence their inability to perceive the right colors.
I’ve never seen it at white and gold. Even the brightened photo, while I understand what’s happening to make people see white and gold, is still blueish/purple and black to me. Does that mean I have a tumor?
deleted by creator
Hey, I have friends who are white and gold… I’ve worked with white and golds.
not used to decrypting overexposed pictures
I used to see it black and blue, now I see it white and gold.
+ I do photography and often have to work with overexposed pictures
Edit: just looked at it again now its black and blue. Wtf brain
overexposure is not the issue but improper white balance, the camera was probably set for ~6800K but the lighting in the room was ~2700K
It’s subconscious it’s not something you can learn. If that were the case people would have no issue understanding how others weren’t ‘decrypting’ the photo.
Also the majority see it as blue and black. 30% as white and gold.
The Journal of Vision, a scientific journal about vision research, announced in March 2015 that a special issue about the dress would be published with the title A Dress Rehearsal for Vision Science.
The first large-scale scientific study on the dress was published in Current Biology three months after the image went viral. The study, which involved 1,400 respondents, found that 57 per cent saw the dress as blue and black, 30 per cent saw it as white and gold, 11 per cent saw it as blue and brown, and two per cent reported it as “other”. Women and older people disproportionately saw the dress as white and gold. The researchers further found that, if the dress was shown in artificial yellow-coloured lighting, almost all respondents saw the dress as black and blue, while they saw it as white and gold if the simulated lighting had a blue bias.
Another study in the Journal of Vision, by Pascal Wallisch, found that people who were early risers were more likely to think the dress was lit by natural light, perceiving it as white and gold, and that “night owls” saw the dress as blue and black.
A study carried out by Schlaffke et al. reported that individuals who saw the dress as white and gold showed increased activity in the frontal and parietal regions of the brain. These areas are thought to be critical in higher cognition activities such as top-down modulation in visual perception
Wow you figured out how to break JPG encryption? Someone call Alan Turing, we got a prodigy over here
Decrypt is closely related to the word “interpret”, which is something I personally interpreted from a history of decrypting English text written by nonnative speakers on the internet. 👍
The same words often have different meanings in different countries; something you should take into account in case you ever decide to take a German gift from a slim Dutchman.
“Decipher” is a mostly synonymous word which is more commonly used in that context.
I’m French, we often use comparable actions verbs even if it’s not their real context. More commonly known as the metaphore stylistic device.
Is it common for the French to put together random semi-related, mostly nonsense words to try and sound like you know what you’re talking about?
I have not enjoyed passing through your comments in this thread
No need to be so sassy c’mon
Just calling em like I see em, but fine. Carry on with the nonsense
Do you see em as white and gold?
I was gonna let you be stupid without saying anything, but you doubled down twice so now I will prove that you are wrong.
The first definition of decrypt in the American Heritage Dictionary is “To Decipher” I’ll admit, not super helpful, so let’s look at the definition of decipher. “To read or interpret (ambiguous, obscure, or illegible matter)”
So for someone to “decrypt” an overexposed picture, they would be, by dictionary definition, trying to interpret what the ambiguous picture was actually showing, since the lighting was making it unclear.
You are in the wrong when saying they used the wrong word, you just don’t have as good a command over the English language as you thought
Being sassy is fine, but being sassy and incorrect makes you look silly.
Sounds like you need to open a dictionary ! It’s one of those big, stern books. Books are those stacks of paper bound together on one side.
I’m not French, we also do it, it’s commonly done and you were completely legible. Dude needs to chill
you fools the dress is clearly grey :3
I never really understood the debate. In reality, if you were standing in front of the dress it is black and blue. Now, if you take a digital photo of the dress and post it on the internet as a terribly compressed jpg, with weird white balancing, and brightness/contrast turned up and down it is gold and white. The debate isn’t really about the reality of the color of the dress but the reality of a badly edited photo.
if you take a digital photo of the [ … thing … ] and post it on the internet as a terribly compressed jpg
That sums up the entirety of the content on a number of popular subs on the R-word site.
Confusing perspective? No. More like confusing JPEG artifacts.
You used to be able to report shit for not being confusing, but it was placebo at best. That site sucks so much.
Is it, though? Is this dress in the pic only white and gold to everyone who looks at the picture/the original?
And what everyone seemed to omit: the reality of peoples’ wildly uncalibrated monitors/phone screens.
Properly calibrated screen for graphic design here, multiple mobile devices. Never any major variance unless it’s a different image.
It’s more about the colors around it. This image from Wikipedia does a really good job illustrating the effect.
Context is extremely important in identifying color. As Technology Connections tells us, for example, “brown is just orange with context.”
What always confused me is, the picture clearly seems to be overexposed, which means the blue/black interpretation should be obvious.
It’s because we’re also very used to seeing photographs of a subject in shade while the background is in full sunlight. If you take a picture of a white and gold dress in the shadow of a patio, with the background all fully lit by bright sunlight, the actual pixels representing white objects in the shade would be that bluish gray tint.
The problem here is that the dress isn’t in the shade but those of us who see white and gold simply assume that it is in shade, while black/blue viewers (correctly) assume that it is under the same lighting conditions of the overexposed background.
This thread has been helpful for understanding how others could see it as white and gold; I never realized people were actually seeing it as in shadow even given the context of the rest of the picture.
I agree. But my wife was so firmly in the white/gold camp that I had to find this (and a better image of the actual dress, which is indeed blue and black) to help us understand one another’s perspective.
…shortly after, the internet broke people’s brains though addictive feed algorithms and everyone lost their minds. But then Lemmy was born to restore the internet to an early more fun time. Lemmy just hopes that one day it will have its own dress moment.
I swear it was blue and black this morning, but now it’s white and gold!
