You see white and gold,
And I see blue and black.
Maybe my eyes are old,
Or photoreceptors I lack.
White and
Gold and
Blue and
Black, well
Let's call the whole thing off.
And I see blue and black.
Maybe my eyes are old,
Or photoreceptors I lack.
White and
Gold and
Blue and
Black, well
Let's call the whole thing off.
5
The experts claim that this picture is different because most people see it one way or the other and that does NOT change. However, I saw the dress as white but if I started the picture at the bottom and slowly scrolled up, the dress appeared blue and black most of the way up. Then it changed back to white and gold. (My husband sees the blue.)
4
OK, so without knowing what I was looking at, I responded "blue and black" when a student asked me on Friday what color the dress was.
Today, I looked at it and saw gold and white. Then I moved my laptop so that I was looking at the screen obliquely from the left. The dress looked blue and black again. When I shifted my view back to looking at it straight on, it stayed black and blue, and I can't get my mind to shift back to white and gold.
Whatever else is going on, this says something about my brain's visual processing. Very interesting indeed!
Today, I looked at it and saw gold and white. Then I moved my laptop so that I was looking at the screen obliquely from the left. The dress looked blue and black again. When I shifted my view back to looking at it straight on, it stayed black and blue, and I can't get my mind to shift back to white and gold.
Whatever else is going on, this says something about my brain's visual processing. Very interesting indeed!
2
So the explanation for this seems to be based in physiology: The number of cone receptors that receive the color blue in an individual's eyes. My question is, does this happen when people see the dress in person or just when it's a photo on a screen?
5
Some of the reactions and comments saddens me. How can our modern global society be so uncurious and closed-minded? Here is a wonderful example of how much we are prisoner's of our own brain and it's attendant organs of perception, and something scientists did not have a ready, precise explanation for. Yet so many people on social media are shouting this down, as though our time and energy would be better spent making catty comments about Miley Cyrus's latest outfit.
5
"... something scientists did not have a ready, precise explanation for."
They did -- see the linked graphic, which was done on very short notice:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/02/28/science/white-or-blue-dres...
They did -- see the linked graphic, which was done on very short notice:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/02/28/science/white-or-blue-dres...
I swear the Times is playing a joke on me!! I saw the picture three times and saw white and gold every time. Even when I read the article again just now, I saw gold and white. But right now, all I can see is black and blue! I can't get my eyes to go back! I feel like the Times must secretly have two versions of the picture that they are randomly attaching to the link. It's driving me crazy!
5
When I saw the first web picture, I thought medium blue and dark grey or brown. Then I searched and found about eight more DEPICTIONS of the dress on the web, and they ranged from white and gold to medium-dark blue and black. It's in the PICTURES, primarily. People my age remember bad TV tint and poorly developed color pix. Same basic thing.
4
No, because when I look at the exact same picture, I now see black and blue, whereas when I first opened the image I saw white and gold. There is indeed some kind of interesting visual thing going on, though it may only impact some of us.
6
Why, in god's name, does any of this matter?
Why does it matter????
Let me see, Here is an example of something that it "Plain as the nose on your face" (that the dress is white and gold) and yet... It's not.
And someone else looks at the same exact picture and sees the dress as Blue and Black. He can't understand how the other person can see it any differently.
Insert "Blue" and "Red" for Blue/black and White/ Gold (or visa versa, it doesn't make a difference) and see why it "matters."
We should all take an object lesson from this and remember that what we are absolutely sure of 1. depends on our suppositions (is it morning light or evening light) AND 2. Can be completely wrong.
Let me see, Here is an example of something that it "Plain as the nose on your face" (that the dress is white and gold) and yet... It's not.
And someone else looks at the same exact picture and sees the dress as Blue and Black. He can't understand how the other person can see it any differently.
Insert "Blue" and "Red" for Blue/black and White/ Gold (or visa versa, it doesn't make a difference) and see why it "matters."
We should all take an object lesson from this and remember that what we are absolutely sure of 1. depends on our suppositions (is it morning light or evening light) AND 2. Can be completely wrong.
8
I thought the same , until we looked at the picture,with a group of friends, and half saw blue and black and half withe and gold...
It is very interesting!
It is very interesting!
6
My color specialist husband says the problem is NOT the light on the dress, nor our eyes, nor the computer screen, it's the camera. The picture was probably taken with a bad cell phone camera which overcompensated the exposure when the lady was in a shaded spot. Auto exposure can be very wrong in their guesstimate.
We both agree that the dress is in blue & black; because no self-respecting MOB would wear white to her daughter's wedding.
We both agree that the dress is in blue & black; because no self-respecting MOB would wear white to her daughter's wedding.
4
The question is, "Why do we care?"
Because understanding the work of our own minds is interesting and captures our imagination?
12
Why do you say "we"?
1
To my (colorblind) friends in the White & Gold camp, your inability to recognize the obvious (Blue & Black) color scheme of a single dress is not something I, nor anyone else should hold against you. Nature dealt you this hand & who am I to argue against nature?
And those concerned with the newsworthiness of this story needn't be worried. My focus on "real" news remains razor sharp as does my mission to save the world upon which doing so relies.
And those concerned with the newsworthiness of this story needn't be worried. My focus on "real" news remains razor sharp as does my mission to save the world upon which doing so relies.
1
So, I make my living making sure the color of artwork is correct and true to the original. My monitor cost more than most people's computers and it's constantly calibrated. With that said, there are a few reasons why this dress might look different.
First reason is that two different photos are circulating. The second reason is, and I personally saw a reference to this, is that the "white point" was reset. The third, is that most people have never calibrated their monitors. Fourth, exposure of the images is different.
With all of that, it is very difficult for me to understand how the color difference can be so disparate. I looked at the image on my monitor and it is white and gold. To be sure, I printed it out on equipment used to create proofs for books, magazines &c.........still white and gold. Since everything else I have still works the same as it always has.......it's white and gold.
First reason is that two different photos are circulating. The second reason is, and I personally saw a reference to this, is that the "white point" was reset. The third, is that most people have never calibrated their monitors. Fourth, exposure of the images is different.
With all of that, it is very difficult for me to understand how the color difference can be so disparate. I looked at the image on my monitor and it is white and gold. To be sure, I printed it out on equipment used to create proofs for books, magazines &c.........still white and gold. Since everything else I have still works the same as it always has.......it's white and gold.
1
So many comments discussing a lousy dress. Even if Princess Kate was wearing it, it would still be a lousy dress. But I'm very sure she would rather be dead than be in that dress. Sorry, Princess Kate but it's just an euphemism.
1
Perhaps it is not only the number of blue cones that plays a role here. Color-blindness can be based on genetic predispositions dictating the precise make up of light-sensitive proteins in the cones.
Read more here:
http://brainmindinst.blogspot.com/2009/09/color-blindness-gene-therapy-b...
Read more here:
http://brainmindinst.blogspot.com/2009/09/color-blindness-gene-therapy-b...
1
Anyone who sees the Aurora Borealis in person for the first time is surprised, maybe even stunned, to realize that the famous green hue seen in many photos of the Aurora often looks white or pale pink to the naked eye.
1
Thanks for pointing that out. Some people see a greenish tint in the Orion Nebula, while others see it as silvery white. Astronomical photographs show many colors.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_Nebula
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_Nebula
It looks periwinkle and gold to me.
2
I have a question that's bothering me:
"From a photograph of the dress the bride posted online, there was broad disagreement....a member of the wedding band was so frustrated by the lack of consensus that she posted a picture of the dress on..."
Is that ..."she posted -a- picture" or "she posted -the- picture"? Is there another picture that people are disagreeing about? (Not that I haven't had enough.)
"From a photograph of the dress the bride posted online, there was broad disagreement....a member of the wedding band was so frustrated by the lack of consensus that she posted a picture of the dress on..."
Is that ..."she posted -a- picture" or "she posted -the- picture"? Is there another picture that people are disagreeing about? (Not that I haven't had enough.)
I don't get it. It's white and gold. Even playing with the brightness on the screen I can't figure out how anyone would see this as black and blue.
Did you try showing the photo to some other people?
4
When my 13-year-old son first showed this to me on his iPhone, I thought we were just going to argue about whether the dress was purple or blue, so I was surprised when (a) he said he saw white and gold and (b) when he 'inverted' the colors on his iPhone, it turned white and gold (in reverse for lace vs fabric) to me (but was always white/gold or gold/white to him). I figured it might have something to do with differences in how people see blue -- how many blue receptors/cones one has (as in the NYT article I read the next day) or how much further towards the ultraviolet that some people see than others (hence the change when the color was inverted for me), given the change in my perception. We tried dimming the lights in the room, dimming the iPhone brightness, etc. but nothing changed for either of us then. But here's more experimental data: on our NYT print copy at home, the dress is blue/black to me on the front page. On my iPhone on an airplane later that day, it was white/gold, so I vowed to check at my hotel. On my laptop screen, I could only see the top half of the photo -- and I saw white/gold -- until I scrolled down. As I scrolled down, it changed to light blue/brown then to dark blue black! Scrolling up and down so that the photo was entirely or only partly visible, this was 100% repeatable. Perhaps it has to do with the bright white light that is in the upper right corner of the photo. To the vision/cognitive scientists out there: is this information useful?
2
PS Our family is split down the middle: looking at the same photo on the same device at the same time, half the family sees blue/black (N=2) and the other half sees white/gold (N=2). The split in color perception is not correlated with gender or age (i.e., male/female and old/young). Everyone has tested recently with normal vision, including normal color vision. So those comments trivializing this as simply device-dependent or someone has to be colorblind are missing an important part of what makes this interesting. Go show it to your friends and family and then perhaps you'll understand the fascination with this!
3
Small correction- an individual's perception of the color of the dress can change. Sometimes I see white and gold, other times I see blue & brown.
I think it's wonderful that everyone has had so much fun with this. Usually there is so much in the news that is tragic, or frightening, or awful. I first saw the dress as white and gold and then later in the day as white and gold. Then an hour later, showing a friend, it was blue and blackish to both of us. Then later yet he saw it as gold and white while I was still seeing blue and black. I'm a physician and haven't yet seen a really satisfying explanation. But I do love that so many people got involved with something so silly :-)
5
This seems to have tapped into that time honored put-down that implies both 'otherness' and delusion. To wit : "What color is the sky in your world?" !
As for the phenomenon itself, when the colors in the image are less saturated (and they vary greatly, I've found) all one has to do is tilt the screen forward or backwards (or stand-up/crouch down, presumably) to get the colors to seemingly change from blue + black to white + gold. Which suggests, to me at least, that this is as much of a screen<-->pixel thing than an eye<-->brain thing.
But then I haven't seen a print version and had someone right next to me seeing it differently, which I can certainly understand being a tad unnerving!
As for the phenomenon itself, when the colors in the image are less saturated (and they vary greatly, I've found) all one has to do is tilt the screen forward or backwards (or stand-up/crouch down, presumably) to get the colors to seemingly change from blue + black to white + gold. Which suggests, to me at least, that this is as much of a screen<-->pixel thing than an eye<-->brain thing.
But then I haven't seen a print version and had someone right next to me seeing it differently, which I can certainly understand being a tad unnerving!
When i tilt my laptop's screen at one angle, it is white and gold. Tilt it at another, and it is blue and black. Our viewing screens (be it laptop, desktop or mobile) will often yield a different chromatic shift, depending on the viewing angle. Simple as that, thanks.
Hi FSC -- I tried the same thing, same effect...except then when I switched back the frontal view that was white and gold, I'd lost that and it stayed the blue and black I saw from an angle. Fun stuff!
1
It keeps going back and forth for me. I'll see it for about 5 seconds as gold and white and then it switches to blue and black. What the heck!
1
I see an ugly dress no matter the color. The poor construction of the dress and jacket make it look like a failed homemade project by a first time sewer.
2
I have clothes that look different in different light. Outdoors, one color and indoors a different shade. Fluorescent lighting affects colors. Computer and smart phone monitors show colors in different ways/shades/hues. If 100 people were viewing this dress in person int he same environment then about 95% of them would see it the same. The aberrant 5% probably have some form of color blindness or poor vision.
The graphic that accompanies this article is the best explanation I have seen so far: brief, to the point, summing up the science behind it without requiring a degree in neuroscience. Congrats to whomever put that together.
3
Edwin Land, of Polaroid fame, invented the Retinex theory of color vision which
fully explains this phenomenon. He showed, through a series of elegant experiments, that the visual cortex compensates for lighting conditions to give us a perception of color constancy of objects, even when the wavelength distribution hitting our eyes is different.
fully explains this phenomenon. He showed, through a series of elegant experiments, that the visual cortex compensates for lighting conditions to give us a perception of color constancy of objects, even when the wavelength distribution hitting our eyes is different.
2
You would think that from an evolutionary perspective being able to correctly interpret the photo might be in the same category as quickly identifying a tiger near a dimly-lit path. The interesting question, to me at least, is why this ability to misperceive something like this hasn't been bred out of us.
2
Possible answer: see stripy animal coming toward you, climb tree, find out if it was orange and black later...also, we might have less ability to differentiate blue because there is very little in the way of blue found amongst living things on land.
1
I think what's happening is that your eye is reading the blue as a cyan shadow cast from the sky on white fabric... wrongly, but that's how I clearly saw it at first. Though now I've gotten retrained and I can't see white and gold any more.
Most of these comments (and most of the comments labelled NYT Picks) miss the very interesting and important point. The issue isn't what color the dress *really* is, the fundamental issue is subjectivity vs. objectivity. Neither my wife nor I are diagnosed as color-blind. Yet, when we look at the photograph of the dress in the print version of the Times, we have wildly different interpretations of the colors. She says the dress is black and blue (and the blue is fairly well saturated between sky-blue and royal blue). I see a kind of dirty gold and white which has a very light blue cast. There are many other objects, white, blue, black and gold about which we agree on the color. So why do we disagree on this photograph? There is clearly some physiological difference that is leading us to categorize these colors in markedly different ways. The conclusion is that (RGB values to the contrary, notwithstanding) this photograph has no *objective* colors in the perceptual sense--and the subjective differences are not small. It should be disturbing that something this simple does not lead to common agreement. Color is, after all, a lot simpler than, say, who is right in Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
14
I see it both ways. When I look only at the upper part, it looks white and gold, and when I scroll down, it stays that way. Then if I look at the shop-window photo, and back at just the bottom of the dress, it looks blue and black, and stays that way, even after I scroll up. Strange indeed!
Firstly, I saw it blue and gold.
Secondly, I realized that it was not blue.
Thirdly, I am at loggerheads with myself.
Lastly, I am 33 years old and my birthday is far now. I wonder how old am I?
Please help me!
Secondly, I realized that it was not blue.
Thirdly, I am at loggerheads with myself.
Lastly, I am 33 years old and my birthday is far now. I wonder how old am I?
Please help me!
1
So much for the validity of eye witness testimony. This is white and gold at every angle but it really isn't! Am I seeing the colors? No but that is a white and gold dress in my eyes.
1
Eyewitness testimony has never had any validity, and this stupid dress phenomenon demonstrates why: Perception is reality.
1
The most fascinating thing was seeing millions of people around the globe weighing in with what colors they see on the dress, their comments/tweets/posts often laced with clever and absolutely hilarious humor (if we just ignore the killjoys who lack a sense of humor). It was a true delight to witness and partake in the debate about #thedress. If only we did not have to wake up out of this and go back to the world of wars, executions, disasters, poverty, unfairness...
7
The internet at its worst.
1
Yes. Much worse than bullying, harassment, hacking, the theft of personal data. People having fun when you are not--it MUST be stopped.
4
The worst are ISIS websites, revenge porn and Facebook bullying. This is just a lesson in science and is a reminder that maybe we should be teaching this in the public schools.
3
Maybe the people who see the dress as Blue / Black are color blind.
Hocus pocus. If you overexpose a picture enough you can turn blue and black into white and gold.
3
It warms my heart when the world is preoccupied with mundane issues like this. And of course it's black and blue.
1
Took me about 15 minutes of playing around with different angles, obscuring different part of the image, tweaking hue, saturation, contrast in Photoshop, but I was eventually able to flip my perception of the original image. (From white & gold -> blue & black.)
One interesting thing to note -
It will not look like the blue & black you see in the properly-lit pictures.
Instead, it will look like something you would *identify* as blue & black. The blue will be extremely washed out. I wager you would be hard-pressed to find the matching dress in real life, even if you naturally see the image in blue & black.
One interesting thing to note -
It will not look like the blue & black you see in the properly-lit pictures.
Instead, it will look like something you would *identify* as blue & black. The blue will be extremely washed out. I wager you would be hard-pressed to find the matching dress in real life, even if you naturally see the image in blue & black.
1
I see light blue and brown. I guess I'm just special-not!
2
Rockin' Robin. We are not the majority it seems. I see a very light tint of blue with brownish/copper trim.
2
OMG! Do 28-million people not have a life? This is extremely dismaying!
I got out a box of Crayola crayons to compare the colors too. I stared at the white crayon, the blue crayon, the gold, and black. Then I stared at the other 78 crayons and compared each one to the dress. None of the crayons matched any of the colors of the dress. Then I had my eyes surgically removed. Then the whole dress looked dark, like black, because that's all I could see----black. So the dress must be all black. I wear sunglasses now and walk with a seeing eye dog.
2
AnetlinerNetliner, you are totally right, it is definitely a monitor/light issue!
And my husband kept saying that all night, while I was reading all these opinions by psychology and brain "experts." I just took the laptop monitor and tilted it all the way back, away from me and I saw the blue and black dress. Straight on, as my husband said, it's gold and white! .... Americans are so good at making a huge something out of nothing!! lol
And my husband kept saying that all night, while I was reading all these opinions by psychology and brain "experts." I just took the laptop monitor and tilted it all the way back, away from me and I saw the blue and black dress. Straight on, as my husband said, it's gold and white! .... Americans are so good at making a huge something out of nothing!! lol
I find it very interesting that when I saw this yesterday on a smartphone it was blue and black but on my CRT monitor it is white and gold. I wonder it it has something to do with the display as well as the viewer. Definately an interesting illusion.
Is it perhaps something to do with mixing colors vs mixing light... eg when you mix primary colors of light, you get white, vs mixing colors that reflect light, you get brown. That is why TV has primary colors that are different than the primary pigment colors, R+G+B = white with light, and yellow is generated by mixing, vs R+Y+B are primaries of color, and yield brown. Perhaps different displays may present the colors differently, as light vs as color, creating the illusion.
I must say that my experience was interesting, especially since the article specifically states that once you see it one way, you generally do not see it the other... Was that on the same display perhaps..
Just goes to show you, don't trust what you see on a monitor or display, reality can be very different.
Is it perhaps something to do with mixing colors vs mixing light... eg when you mix primary colors of light, you get white, vs mixing colors that reflect light, you get brown. That is why TV has primary colors that are different than the primary pigment colors, R+G+B = white with light, and yellow is generated by mixing, vs R+Y+B are primaries of color, and yield brown. Perhaps different displays may present the colors differently, as light vs as color, creating the illusion.
I must say that my experience was interesting, especially since the article specifically states that once you see it one way, you generally do not see it the other... Was that on the same display perhaps..
Just goes to show you, don't trust what you see on a monitor or display, reality can be very different.
"People who see the dress one way do not eventually begin to see it the other way, as is common with many optical illusions."
- That is absolutely wrong. I see it as white and gold at work and on my phone - low end non-colormanaged displays. At home my monitors that are (quite sloppily) calibrated and with low color neutral ambient light, monitor brightness at less than 100 cdm2 and white point set to more or less to D65 (close to 6500K, essentially set for print matching). When I look at them even in non-color-managed programs it slowly starts to turn into black and blue (going through light blue / dirty brown) . I see black and blue now, no matter if it's color-managed or not. This is not an optical illusion. That's your brain adjusting to the white point. My brain wouldn't see it black and blue on a crappy display, but is comfortable with the "real" picture when displayed on a setup that is geared to photography.
RGB numbers have no relation to the real world colors whatsoever (you would need a spectrophotometer in front of your print or your monitor for knowing what the colors reaching your brain actually are).
On low end monitors no matter how much I tried to convince myself that it's an overexposed image with a wrong white balance (I'm a photographer) I could only see white and gold.
- That is absolutely wrong. I see it as white and gold at work and on my phone - low end non-colormanaged displays. At home my monitors that are (quite sloppily) calibrated and with low color neutral ambient light, monitor brightness at less than 100 cdm2 and white point set to more or less to D65 (close to 6500K, essentially set for print matching). When I look at them even in non-color-managed programs it slowly starts to turn into black and blue (going through light blue / dirty brown) . I see black and blue now, no matter if it's color-managed or not. This is not an optical illusion. That's your brain adjusting to the white point. My brain wouldn't see it black and blue on a crappy display, but is comfortable with the "real" picture when displayed on a setup that is geared to photography.
RGB numbers have no relation to the real world colors whatsoever (you would need a spectrophotometer in front of your print or your monitor for knowing what the colors reaching your brain actually are).
On low end monitors no matter how much I tried to convince myself that it's an overexposed image with a wrong white balance (I'm a photographer) I could only see white and gold.
That dress can only be described in one word: SCHMATTA.
2
OK, but what colors do you see?
1
The graphic explained quite a bit; once I started moving my laptop monitor the dress changed for me from gold and white to blue and black and then back again as I shifted the monitor. This confirms both the idea of ambient light and how the monitor's light itself and the angle of seeing the image can change the perception of colors. I bet if the photograph was seen as a hard copy color print and not through digital media and various monitors the illusion wouldn't work.
To best understand the problem that has caused such an uproar, you need to look at the photo with a group of people using one computer and one angle of view. Get six people together to view, and you will not get a consensus as to what color combination the dress is. Most will see gold and white, but probably two will adamantly contend that the dress is blue and black. It is not about differences from computer to computer, it is a matter of differences in how individual people infer color. That is what has captured the publics interest in this simple dress.
7
If the light in the room and the vertical lines were the reason for the optical illusion, we would constantly see this effect in bar codes, in most pictures of striped clothes. IT IS an optical illusion but a more complex one that takes place at a pixel level. In China, California and Canada, a technology is being explored to recreate a "Chameleon" effect . It it's been documented and published how calamari, octopi and Chameleon can change color. Although not the same, since in animals chemical reactions take place, it has been duplicated with the use of magnetism. It is also very common now in temperature reactive inks. However taken to a pixel level, if different colors are encapsulated within a pixel then the color effect could take place. The outcome of such studies have a huge outreach.... From marketing, textile development, warfare,etc. This image could have been manipulated to test the effectiveness of the image encapsulation (I wouldn't be surprised if a market research was being done using social media!) or it could been a lucky accident of the camara that will help perfect the studies being done in color perception or adaptation. Very much as 3D imaging and holography a few decades ago. the interesting outcome will be if we start seeing in a couple of years some commercial applications of this effect.
So even if the actual dress is blue,/black.... The image is equally white/gold and blue/black. However the brain can only interpret one set at a time.
So even if the actual dress is blue,/black.... The image is equally white/gold and blue/black. However the brain can only interpret one set at a time.
3
"People who see the dress one way do not eventually begin to see it the other way, as is common with many optical illusions."
That's not true. I could only see it one way, but when told to start at the bottom, looking only at the blue-tinted hem, and then the darkish ochre trim, and then scroll up, I could see it as blue and black. Sure enough, I could. I needed to process it that way.
And it's not silly. It's a new kind of optical illusion for the 21st century--very cool.
As for those saying "it's the camera", no. If it were, then wouldn't we all see it the same, but incorrectly? The odd thing is just how many people see it one way, and how many see it the other way, even on the same screen. Very odd. I've seen bad photos before. We all have. This is different.
That's not true. I could only see it one way, but when told to start at the bottom, looking only at the blue-tinted hem, and then the darkish ochre trim, and then scroll up, I could see it as blue and black. Sure enough, I could. I needed to process it that way.
And it's not silly. It's a new kind of optical illusion for the 21st century--very cool.
As for those saying "it's the camera", no. If it were, then wouldn't we all see it the same, but incorrectly? The odd thing is just how many people see it one way, and how many see it the other way, even on the same screen. Very odd. I've seen bad photos before. We all have. This is different.
5
You are right. If it was a simple optical illusion we would constantly see it in bar codes and clothes. It is a very complex optical illusion done at a pixel level. (A regular computer can not process the amount of information to obtain this effect.... Yet ). But if you are curious enough there are many published scientific articles related to the adaptation of color perception that started many years (decades) ago; first to understand how chameleons, octopus and calamari change color. And now to replicate the effect, mainly for commercial use. China, the U.S. And Canada are at the forefront of these studies. I would be surprised if this were some kind o market research !
When I first looked at the dress, I saw it as white and gold. When I looked at it later, I saw it as blue and black. I tried looking at it again the next day and once more it was white and gold. I have now looked multiple times (all in the name of science of course!) at different times of the day. I have determined that when it is daytime I see it as white, when it is nighttime, I see it as blue. The funny thing is it doesn't even matter if the drapes are closed. It only seems to matter if I know whether it is dark or sunny outside.
3
I saw a white and gold dress on one site and the next day, a blue and brown one on another. So my first thought was hat it was a joke with photo shop effects. But now I see that I can easily change the colors simply by increasing or decreasing the light in the room. In a dim room yellow and white appear, but in a bright room, I see blue and brown. Background colors in the room may play a role too, I haven't tried that. But it illustrates that the brain perceives color in comparison to whatever else is in the visual field. Color is a perception, not a fixed property.
2
No consumer computer monitor renders colors correctly, all render more or less approximation to the real color.
So different devices will show you different colors with the same feed.. On my Iphone dress looks white and gold, on my Dell laptop light blue and beige, on my PC monitor it's powder blue and black
You can get displays that render color more accurately, but a 24" studio LCD monitor from Sony will set you back $ 4000.
So before getting involved into perception theory, consider your display.
So different devices will show you different colors with the same feed.. On my Iphone dress looks white and gold, on my Dell laptop light blue and beige, on my PC monitor it's powder blue and black
You can get displays that render color more accurately, but a 24" studio LCD monitor from Sony will set you back $ 4000.
So before getting involved into perception theory, consider your display.
It's not the monitor. Many people, including myself, have looked at the same monitor with other people and saw different colors.
6
Im in The printing industry and have perfectly calibrated printers and monitors. I can see at times the blue/black or the white/gold. It is an optical illusion, yes, but not in the stripes or lighting. Even when you zoom the image where you cannot see the background or the stripes, people will see either blue or white. It is an illusion but at a very small scale... In the nano pixels.
1
Spouse and I see blue and gold on computer monitors, blue and black on TV.
1)Anyone else seeing blue and gold?
2)Sounds like a monitor issue.
1)Anyone else seeing blue and gold?
2)Sounds like a monitor issue.
1
P.S. The photo taken at the wedding is the (light) blue and gold. What we saw on TV was provided by the manufacturer and looked bright blue and black. Also a factor, then, is that images are from different sources: wedding guest versus manufacturer.
1
I am also seeing a blue (periwinkle) and gold dress, and have to say, in those colors it is a very unflattering dress.
1
This is really interesting. I see the dress as a very light blue (lilac?) but believed the dress to actually be white and gold and in shadow. When I see pictures of the actual dress the dress looks not so much blue as a shade of purple and black...I wonder how many of the people who see blue and black see blue and black of actual dress or just light blue as I'm seeing...I also wonder if introverted people see the dress as brighter (white and gold) because more sensitive to stimuli while extroverted people see the dress as blue and black...Serious tests should be done with people and this dress. Maybe we can do some science experiments while Elton John models it...
1
Whoa! It was blue and black the first time I looked at the picture and now it is gold and white. Did someone change the picture?
2
Everyone who is at this moment teaching or taking Philosophy 101 is delighted with this internet discussion! How else would we understand the medieval and early modern debate about whether colors are "really in" things? Or that pesky concept of "primary and secondary qualities" where some aspects of an object are considered more real than others? The world-wide network of philosophers is grateful for the interest taken in this photo! Who knew philosophy was so chic!
8
When I tilt my laptop screen in one direction, the dress is gold and white while if I tilt it another direction it is blue and black. I think it has more to do with the light hitting the viewing screen than it does the number of blue cones in one's eyes as the article states.
1
I'm commenting because I find this quite unsettling. On my old monitor the dress in the top photo appears a medium blue and a washed-out brownish black. The rest of the photo shows an overexposed and/or brightly lit room, providing the visual cue that this is a dark dress seen in a bright environment. I understand what the article is saying about relativity of colour perception. But I'm certain that nobody here in the room with me (with normal vision) could possibly perceive this dress as being as white and gold.
I wondered if there was some other photo that my browser had failed to load, but no, apparently not.
What's going on? Has the world gone mad? Everybody's crazy but thee and me and sometimes I'm not sure about thee.
I wondered if there was some other photo that my browser had failed to load, but no, apparently not.
What's going on? Has the world gone mad? Everybody's crazy but thee and me and sometimes I'm not sure about thee.
2
I assure you: it's not your monitor. My wife sits next to me and forcefully declares Black/Blue; I see Gold/White. It's a stubborn perceptual judgment your mind makes -- very similar to the vase/two profiles facing each other illusion. Now, the bit about the world gone mad -- you've got that right.
4
"... perceive this dress as being as white and gold."
How would you describe the colors in the linked graphic?
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/02/28/science/white-or-blue-dres...
How would you describe the colors in the linked graphic?
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/02/28/science/white-or-blue-dres...
@Steve: Medium blue and dark dull brown in the photo of the dress; white and gold in the lightest part of the graphic; medium blue and dark brown on the right hand graphic.
(I'm aware of the phenomenon of colour constancy)
@Someone: Now that you mention the vase/two profiles illusion, it all makes a little more sense. However with the vase/profiles illusion I can easily see it both ways and, as it were, flip it back and forth in my brain. But ain't no way I can see a white and gold dress here. The cues in the rest of the photo suggest an image that is overexposed - which, if anything, indicate to my brain that the dress would be even darker in a correctly exposed image.
I can turn the dress "apparently white and gold" (to my brain) by increasing the picture's brightness in Photoshop.
If I tilt my monitor so far that that the image is nearly out of view, the apparent brightness increases enough that I begin to see a bluish white and dark gold dress.
It could simply be that some displays are much brighter/whiter than others - also, different programs can display the same image somewhat differently on the same computer (I notice this on my own computer) - therefore showing some viewers an image closer to the visual "flipping point".
(I'm aware of the phenomenon of colour constancy)
@Someone: Now that you mention the vase/two profiles illusion, it all makes a little more sense. However with the vase/profiles illusion I can easily see it both ways and, as it were, flip it back and forth in my brain. But ain't no way I can see a white and gold dress here. The cues in the rest of the photo suggest an image that is overexposed - which, if anything, indicate to my brain that the dress would be even darker in a correctly exposed image.
I can turn the dress "apparently white and gold" (to my brain) by increasing the picture's brightness in Photoshop.
If I tilt my monitor so far that that the image is nearly out of view, the apparent brightness increases enough that I begin to see a bluish white and dark gold dress.
It could simply be that some displays are much brighter/whiter than others - also, different programs can display the same image somewhat differently on the same computer (I notice this on my own computer) - therefore showing some viewers an image closer to the visual "flipping point".
2
"TN panels have such poor viewing angles that it's almost impossible for two people to view them at the same time and see the same colors. If it is poorly calibrated and a really, really poor one just moving a little as you look at it might flip it back and forth.
If you view on a cheap TN type LCD screen if you tilt it one way it becomes (assume calibrated to begin with) near white and faded gold from one viewing angle and strongly blueish white and very dark near black dingy gold.
If you take a well calibrated screen and then change the white balance to something realllly warm you can turn it from dull gold and blueish white to somewhat less dull gold and white.
If you take a well calibrated screen and then crank the contrast through the roof (making sure the gamma setting is really high at lower end) and then change the white balance to something realllly cold you can turn it from dull gold and blueish white to very dark gray and rich blue.
"
If you view on a cheap TN type LCD screen if you tilt it one way it becomes (assume calibrated to begin with) near white and faded gold from one viewing angle and strongly blueish white and very dark near black dingy gold.
If you take a well calibrated screen and then change the white balance to something realllly warm you can turn it from dull gold and blueish white to somewhat less dull gold and white.
If you take a well calibrated screen and then crank the contrast through the roof (making sure the gamma setting is really high at lower end) and then change the white balance to something realllly cold you can turn it from dull gold and blueish white to very dark gray and rich blue.
"
1
For me, it DOES change. I first saw white and gold, and tried to MAKE myself see blue and black, but couldn't. Then, I read the Buzzfeed story and saw the photo of the dress in different light. Then I scrolled back up to the original photo, and now it was blue and black. I thought it was a trick. I thought the photo had been switched. I now find that if I step away, then look again, it's always white and gold at first. But if I zoom in, or look at the other photo, then look again, it's blue again. And, unlike the Necker cube, I can't choose what I perceive. It just is.
6
this is nonsendical catnip. In pictures from it loks white/gold and in others its blue/black. I even copied and pasted one piece and it looked blue/black until I pasted it in an email and then it turned white/gold. Why has noone stated that maybe most people looking it ARE in their opinion (either way) and its simply a function of the interaction btw the video driver in your computer and the interaction with the file embedded in the page. why none of these people have even considered that floors me. i used to write code and think I could write it to change color rendition without that much a problem.
2
One last attempt to explain this in layman terms.
This is clearly a case of color constancy. Your brain is trying to interpret the colors in context of the ambient lighting in the photo and surrounding color.
The dress can either be white and gold back lit with blue ambient lighting or highly overexposed black and blue. Both interpretations are internally consistent exactly like the optical illusions of two faces or a vase. So it should not be surprising that your brain switches.
The actual RGB colors sampled in Photoshop are irrelevant in terms of revealing the "true" local color (it's color in evenly dispersed neutral light) because ambient color can easily turn white into blue.
The brain actually has three options of making sense of this picture, each with its own anomaly.
1) The bluish white is actually white in shadow with ambient blue lighting while the brown is gold (on the other hand nothing else in the picture has ambient blue light?)
2) The Bluish white is actually deep blue overexposed with front lighting and the dull black/brown/gold is also overexposed dark blue/black (on the other hand there seems to be strong back lighting as opposed to front, and why didn't the dappled cloth get equally overexposed in the darks)
3) The bluish white is actually light blue and the dark is dull dusky brown or black and nothing is overexposed and it is neutral lighting ( the problem with is that it does not seem to be even neutral lighting but back lit or overexposed)
This is clearly a case of color constancy. Your brain is trying to interpret the colors in context of the ambient lighting in the photo and surrounding color.
The dress can either be white and gold back lit with blue ambient lighting or highly overexposed black and blue. Both interpretations are internally consistent exactly like the optical illusions of two faces or a vase. So it should not be surprising that your brain switches.
The actual RGB colors sampled in Photoshop are irrelevant in terms of revealing the "true" local color (it's color in evenly dispersed neutral light) because ambient color can easily turn white into blue.
The brain actually has three options of making sense of this picture, each with its own anomaly.
1) The bluish white is actually white in shadow with ambient blue lighting while the brown is gold (on the other hand nothing else in the picture has ambient blue light?)
2) The Bluish white is actually deep blue overexposed with front lighting and the dull black/brown/gold is also overexposed dark blue/black (on the other hand there seems to be strong back lighting as opposed to front, and why didn't the dappled cloth get equally overexposed in the darks)
3) The bluish white is actually light blue and the dark is dull dusky brown or black and nothing is overexposed and it is neutral lighting ( the problem with is that it does not seem to be even neutral lighting but back lit or overexposed)
5
I think at least half of the online disputes could be cleared up by agreeing that we are debating a -picture- of a dress and not -the- dress.
Showing a picture of (or making reference to, as this article does) the 'real' and 'unambiguous' dress and declaring victory does not clear anything up.
Showing a picture of (or making reference to, as this article does) the 'real' and 'unambiguous' dress and declaring victory does not clear anything up.
4
"How a poor monitor calibration might turn the dull gold & blueish white to gold and white:
OK since in this weird picture of it the lace part measures: 89RED,72GREEN,44BLUE (very drab gold) and the non-lace part measures: 117RED,134GREEN,178BLUE imagine if someone has a monitor that is set too bright and has the white balance set too warm that would mean they have more red and green and less blue so add a bit of red and even more green and take away a bit of blue and you get maybe 105RED,85GREEN,40BLUE only it looks is more brilliant than that so it looks more like a 140R,120G,60B on a more reasonable screen so the dull gold turns into a somewhat brighter gold, if still a bit dingy and the blueish-white part goes to say 160RED,150GREEN,190BLUE and then that makes it look closer to pure white with less of a blue tint."
OK since in this weird picture of it the lace part measures: 89RED,72GREEN,44BLUE (very drab gold) and the non-lace part measures: 117RED,134GREEN,178BLUE imagine if someone has a monitor that is set too bright and has the white balance set too warm that would mean they have more red and green and less blue so add a bit of red and even more green and take away a bit of blue and you get maybe 105RED,85GREEN,40BLUE only it looks is more brilliant than that so it looks more like a 140R,120G,60B on a more reasonable screen so the dull gold turns into a somewhat brighter gold, if still a bit dingy and the blueish-white part goes to say 160RED,150GREEN,190BLUE and then that makes it look closer to pure white with less of a blue tint."
2
Thanks for your comments quantifying the image colors. It might help to post a link to a web site that could be used to actually display the colors corresponding to the RGB values you are reporting.
1
"Here is what the color of the dress is in THIS poor photo of it:
lace part: 89 RED,72GREEN,44BLUE to 126RED,108GREEN,72BLUE (i.e. dull, drab gold!) [black would be like say 0,0,0 to 30,30,30 or so]
non-lace part: 117RED,134GREEN,178BLUE to 165RED,173GREEN,209BLUE (i.e. light faded blue to blue tinted white) [truly rich blue would have less red and green relative to blue and less of all of them]
This is why most people see it as dull, drab gold and faded blue/blue-tinted white. (some mistakenly think that gold only means bright shiny jewelry looking gold and decide that since it is not that the next best choice to call it is black, especially if their monitor contrast is way too high and these dark gold tones get pushed really dark or if they view a cheap TN panel from all the many angles where it dumps colors like this to near black).
Here is what the color of the dress is in the highest quality pic of the dress on the maker's website:
lace part: 25RED,23GREEN,33BLUE (i.e. very, very dark gray, near black with the slight hint of blue, i.e. black)
non-lace part: 26RED,52GREEN,126BLUE (i.e. a very intense deep darkish blue)
"
lace part: 89 RED,72GREEN,44BLUE to 126RED,108GREEN,72BLUE (i.e. dull, drab gold!) [black would be like say 0,0,0 to 30,30,30 or so]
non-lace part: 117RED,134GREEN,178BLUE to 165RED,173GREEN,209BLUE (i.e. light faded blue to blue tinted white) [truly rich blue would have less red and green relative to blue and less of all of them]
This is why most people see it as dull, drab gold and faded blue/blue-tinted white. (some mistakenly think that gold only means bright shiny jewelry looking gold and decide that since it is not that the next best choice to call it is black, especially if their monitor contrast is way too high and these dark gold tones get pushed really dark or if they view a cheap TN panel from all the many angles where it dumps colors like this to near black).
Here is what the color of the dress is in the highest quality pic of the dress on the maker's website:
lace part: 25RED,23GREEN,33BLUE (i.e. very, very dark gray, near black with the slight hint of blue, i.e. black)
non-lace part: 26RED,52GREEN,126BLUE (i.e. a very intense deep darkish blue)
"
3
Here in Pittsburgh, the dress is clearly Black and Gold.
3
Easy solution. Take a screen shot, dump it into paint, use the color picker on the colors, and check the RGB values.
3
Thanks NYT for giving us this article. I learned a lot and found the information fascinating while also having a lot of fun!
2
According to Chuck Norris, either the dress is white and gold, or you are black and blue.
5
I can understand different people's eyes enterpreting the color differently due to the lighting, exposure or whatever caused the illusion but.. why were there some people (like myself) who clearly saw gold and white, I even voted, then within minutes it turned blue and black before my eyes! That's the only way I see it now and I know it was gold and white the first few times I viewed it. I'll never trust my eyes again!
4
Big Deal! The Dear Leader is tasking away our freedoms away, (ie Internet) is flooding the U.S. with illegals, cozying up with the Moozelims, has the Middle East in flames, wrecked relations with Russia, driven the national debt to a point of almost no return and is now going after our guns and people are worried about the color of a dress?
Nobody's worried about it. They're intrigued about it. And that's good. Read the article at the Atlantic explaining why we shouldn't engage in attention trolling about fun memes like this. Hint: collaboration, speculative conversation, just joking around bring us together and we need to be together to solve the world's problems.
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/02/thedress-and-the-r...
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/02/thedress-and-the-r...
4
Moozelims? like moose-people? People who look mooses? cool!
If you ever had a color theory course, the answer is obvious.
Go somewhere very bright for a while or look at a screen with the brightness turned way up for a few minutes, and the dress will look unmistakably black and blue.
Sit inside for a while without watching TV or looking at a bright screen, and it will look unmistakably white and gold.
That's all it is. The amount of light filtered by your pupils when they're adjusted to bright light is exactly the right amount to shift you perception of the dress in this picture. What's weird is that nobody ever noticed this kind of thing before.
RIP Spock.
Sit inside for a while without watching TV or looking at a bright screen, and it will look unmistakably white and gold.
That's all it is. The amount of light filtered by your pupils when they're adjusted to bright light is exactly the right amount to shift you perception of the dress in this picture. What's weird is that nobody ever noticed this kind of thing before.
RIP Spock.
5
If I look straight on at the original photo, the dress looks gold and white to me. However, if I look up at it, nearly parallel to the screen, from the very bottom right corner of my computer monitor, my perception of the light changes and it appears as a somewhat faded blue and black. I have blue eyes...
2
A bad, dowdy dress gets so much good press. Wow!! We most certainly have evolved for the worse.
1
This line isn't correct: "People who see the dress one way do not eventually begin to see it the other way, as is common with many optical illusions."
I saw the picture first on FB and saw it as white and gold. I googled around and read through another article, seeing that top picture the same way, however, further down were different photos and those I saw as black and blue.
When I scrolled back to the top of that page, I now saw black and blue rather than white and gold. Same thing when I clicked back to the still open tab on FB -- what had been clearly white and gold was clearly dark blue and black.
It's not the picture -- it's your eyes! Often I still see it as white and gold, but if I look away and only use my peripheral vision at first, it switches over. When I look back straight on, it stays black and blue.
These colors are very different, too, the blue and black are quite dark/saturated, not the "bluish white" and "goldish brown" some people describe.
I saw the picture first on FB and saw it as white and gold. I googled around and read through another article, seeing that top picture the same way, however, further down were different photos and those I saw as black and blue.
When I scrolled back to the top of that page, I now saw black and blue rather than white and gold. Same thing when I clicked back to the still open tab on FB -- what had been clearly white and gold was clearly dark blue and black.
It's not the picture -- it's your eyes! Often I still see it as white and gold, but if I look away and only use my peripheral vision at first, it switches over. When I look back straight on, it stays black and blue.
These colors are very different, too, the blue and black are quite dark/saturated, not the "bluish white" and "goldish brown" some people describe.
3
"Maybe some of it just down to how people define colors. I've just noticed that a lot of females who checked blue+black, have later on said stuff like: "I said blue+black simply because they didn't give an option for "bronze/slate and faded periwinkle." or "I saw it as bronze/olive and light purple/blue so I chose the black+gold option since that seemed closer than white+gold".
To me bronze+periwinkle is closer to the gold+white option (knowing that white turns blueish in shadow, especially in camera shots and that bright gold looks like bronze/brown/olive bronze/etc. when you look at dark shades of gold), but then I see a number of people saying that they chose blue and black because they decided that blue and black is closer to that with their definitions.
I think it may be that some people associate the term gold solely with like intense flashy bright light gold jewelry & are not used to doing lots of photoshop & color work & don't realize what gold looks like when lowered in brightness so they just call the darker shades of gold as black when forced to chose between the terms gold and black.
And then they are used to white as being like snow white and as soon as they see a little purple/blue or whatnot they just call it blue.
Mix in a screen with contrast too high & WB set too cold& there you go!
Maybe blue+black chosen by color blind guys & to females/guys associating the term gold with really bright flashy jewelry gold color (espc. with off monitor).
To me bronze+periwinkle is closer to the gold+white option (knowing that white turns blueish in shadow, especially in camera shots and that bright gold looks like bronze/brown/olive bronze/etc. when you look at dark shades of gold), but then I see a number of people saying that they chose blue and black because they decided that blue and black is closer to that with their definitions.
I think it may be that some people associate the term gold solely with like intense flashy bright light gold jewelry & are not used to doing lots of photoshop & color work & don't realize what gold looks like when lowered in brightness so they just call the darker shades of gold as black when forced to chose between the terms gold and black.
And then they are used to white as being like snow white and as soon as they see a little purple/blue or whatnot they just call it blue.
Mix in a screen with contrast too high & WB set too cold& there you go!
Maybe blue+black chosen by color blind guys & to females/guys associating the term gold with really bright flashy jewelry gold color (espc. with off monitor).
1
"they just call it blue"
Good point. The only way to accurately report a color is to use one of the scientifically defined color spaces:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_space
Or to use color matching systems such as the one from Pantone:
https://www.pantone.com/
Good point. The only way to accurately report a color is to use one of the scientifically defined color spaces:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_space
Or to use color matching systems such as the one from Pantone:
https://www.pantone.com/
"The one thing scientists could agree on was that this is a very unusual illusion. People who see the dress one way do not eventually begin to see it the other way, as is common with many optical illusions."
The above is incorrect in my own case. I saw it as white and gold at first.
Then pale blue and brown.
Then blue and black.
Now I've just had a re-glimpse as white and gold.
Don't believe everything you think.
The above is incorrect in my own case. I saw it as white and gold at first.
Then pale blue and brown.
Then blue and black.
Now I've just had a re-glimpse as white and gold.
Don't believe everything you think.
4
Interesting effect - I saw blueish white and gold no matter what. Until... I was curious about why I can clearly see that there is a black & white pattern (is it really black & white?) in the background (bottom left of the picture). After focusing on that part of the picture exclusively, I started seeing the dress as black and blue (not blueish white anymore).
I tried a few times back and forth - whenever I focus on the picture as a whole, I see blueish white and gold, and if I refocus to the pattern in the background or if I look at it from the start, I see the dress as blue and black.
So the thing I can't find true for myself is this: "People who see the dress one way do not eventually begin to see it the other way, as is common with many optical illusions." How you perceive the colors, is also impacted by focus, and, of course, by context. It would be interesting to see how viewers would perceive the dress' colors if the background were yellow, or green, or patterned and colored differently. In my experience as a designer, that's always mattered.
I tried a few times back and forth - whenever I focus on the picture as a whole, I see blueish white and gold, and if I refocus to the pattern in the background or if I look at it from the start, I see the dress as blue and black.
So the thing I can't find true for myself is this: "People who see the dress one way do not eventually begin to see it the other way, as is common with many optical illusions." How you perceive the colors, is also impacted by focus, and, of course, by context. It would be interesting to see how viewers would perceive the dress' colors if the background were yellow, or green, or patterned and colored differently. In my experience as a designer, that's always mattered.
1
Live your life in a cave with no light and the problem is solved. Live in a well lit world alone and there was never a problem. Live in a many peopled world of varies lights and brightness and differences in perception appear
That is the way of the world and also the way of our politics.
As the world gets ever more crowded and ever more variously lighted it can only get more variously perceived and thanks to the march of technology, ever more viral.
That's a thought worth really considering so maybe this dress debate is serving a purpose after all.
That is the way of the world and also the way of our politics.
As the world gets ever more crowded and ever more variously lighted it can only get more variously perceived and thanks to the march of technology, ever more viral.
That's a thought worth really considering so maybe this dress debate is serving a purpose after all.
Look at the image with your non-dominant eye only, and not in the centre of the visual field. I can see it in the "other" colour that way. Got the idea watching a documentary about Federico da Montefeltro who studied perspective and perception and may have had the bridge of his nose removed so it would not obstruct his vision after he lost his right eye in a joust.
When first reading the article, I saw the dress as white and gold. After emailing myself a copy and returning to the opened article, the dress had become blue and black! Time to see the ophthalmologist . . .
9
There is another component to this phenomenon. I have had cataract surgery and when I had one eye done, I noticed an almost complete inability to see a blue laser pointer with the untreated eye. At present with both eyes treated, I will see the dress as blue and gold. My wife who has cataract surgery in her future will sees the same image as mostly white with a blue hint.
As the natural eye lens ages, it becomes more yellow and will filter out the blue light.
As the natural eye lens ages, it becomes more yellow and will filter out the blue light.
It's periwinkle and puce.
2
The color of the dress depends on the angle at which I'm viewing my computer screen. From straight on, it looks bluish-white and golden-tan. If I angle the screen upwards or slump back in my chair, it looks blue and black.
5
Have you ever seen that optical illusion of a "duck rabbit"? You look at it one way and you see a duck. Look at it another way and you see a rabbit.
Now imagine after I ask you whether you see a "duck" or a "rabbit", I then tell you "no, it's a turtle". And I prove that by showing you an *entirely different* image of a turtle.
Shame on you, NYTimes, for showing a dress hanging in a store comparing this as if it is the same dress pictured on the woman next to the bride. Bait and switch, and it looks like many people have been fooled....
Now imagine after I ask you whether you see a "duck" or a "rabbit", I then tell you "no, it's a turtle". And I prove that by showing you an *entirely different* image of a turtle.
Shame on you, NYTimes, for showing a dress hanging in a store comparing this as if it is the same dress pictured on the woman next to the bride. Bait and switch, and it looks like many people have been fooled....
3
From what I could gather browsing multiple informed opinions and looking at color swatches from the actual image in isolation, if you see powder blue and beige when you look at the dress, you are viewing the image in its rawest form and your mind's vision centers are doing the least processing of the raw image info.
That can either make you feel proud that you are seeing things as they are, or it can make you feel like you are a bit behind those who have more sophisticated and evolved visual centers! I am embracing the primitive here since I see very-light blue and beige, and am wholly unable to trick my mind into seeing blue and black.
That can either make you feel proud that you are seeing things as they are, or it can make you feel like you are a bit behind those who have more sophisticated and evolved visual centers! I am embracing the primitive here since I see very-light blue and beige, and am wholly unable to trick my mind into seeing blue and black.
14
After 30 minutes of trying, I was finally able to see it as blue/black. I used own a black car and know how dusty the black looks when white-washed in a bright light. So I stared at it hard and imagined the gold is really dusty looking black.
I can imagine how hard it would be for someone to see it that way without such an experience . A little bit of experience indeed goes a long way to view things in different lights (pun intended).
I can imagine how hard it would be for someone to see it that way without such an experience . A little bit of experience indeed goes a long way to view things in different lights (pun intended).
I had cataract surgery in my right eye last Tuesday. When someone showed me the picture on his cell phone, the dress looked white and gold with my right eye, light blue and dark gray with my left. I don't think that was the kind of answer the guy was expecting.
On my desktop, it depends on which picture I'm looking at. It's all marvelously ontological.
On my desktop, it depends on which picture I'm looking at. It's all marvelously ontological.
15
What you see on TV or Computer screen is only a picture of the dress, NOT the dress itself. So, bring the dress to me; then I will tell you the correct colors of the dress.
3
This dress myth made me crazy, my friends say that its this and this and i said its gold and blue. When I was not able to convenience them, i just opened the photoshop and using color picker i detected its color and now i can say its golden and bluish. I posted about it here http://abbasharoon.me/dress-color-mystery-finally-resolved/ I think the debate should be over now :D
1
Wait a minute...this article begs the fundamental question at issue. In the graphic showing the different possible impressions of the dress's color, the end contains " The Answer" apparently showing the "real "dress as blue and black...but I see that picture as one of a gold and white dress !
If that does not strike the reader as plausible (am I color blind?) I hasten to add I "see" it as white and gold because I regard the the picture in "The Answer" as manipulated by the addition of "flesh" tones and a "white dress" to create a false impression of a blue and black dress!
Nonsense...yes, but so is much of the attention to this phenomenon. We have all known for a long time that visual perception is affected by context, lighting, etc. and it s all too easy to produce "optical illusions" like this one by suitable handling of light, background colors, shapes etc. So what is new here?
If that does not strike the reader as plausible (am I color blind?) I hasten to add I "see" it as white and gold because I regard the the picture in "The Answer" as manipulated by the addition of "flesh" tones and a "white dress" to create a false impression of a blue and black dress!
Nonsense...yes, but so is much of the attention to this phenomenon. We have all known for a long time that visual perception is affected by context, lighting, etc. and it s all too easy to produce "optical illusions" like this one by suitable handling of light, background colors, shapes etc. So what is new here?
What a joy to read something about colors other than simply red and blue.
2
I see blue and gold, is that reflecting my natural moderate views? Or am I the only sane one?
6
That's what spouse and I see. We're sane. Also moderate.
1
Me too….might be a moderate amount of blue cones.
1
I do a fair amount of photo editing. I saw a mix of blue/purple and a dark brown. I know from experience what it should look like. Blue and Black.
Scary thing is that we are arguing not about the color of the dress itself, before our eyes, or even a printed photo of a dress, but about a digital screen image of a dress--as if that were the ultimate reality. (BTW, the readers who suggest tilting the screen or looking from the corner of one's eyes are right.)
1
Remember when there were no digital cameras and their smartphone counterparts? Your color film photos were like what you saw when you took the picture, and the color film negatives were the prints' opposite colors -- you know, like a color wheel's opposite colors. You may have noticed that the color opposite black was (and remains) amber. The opposite of dark blue is light orange. Colors change according to the kind of light that prevails. Sunlight is natural light, but fluorescent, neon, and incandescent aren't, and make their own subtle changes. The kind of fabric or other surfaces will alter our perceptions as well. (If another commentator has written about this, my apologies.)
2
How about this? Is just a bad photo. We're also conflating two questions: What color is the dress in real life, and what color is it in the photo? Then there's this question for people who see it as blue and black: Do the blacks in the dress look the same as the black text in the story that surrounds the photo?
2
No -- after looking at several different versions, I can see ONE picture either way. It's not the picture.
2
When I look at the picture with my eyes wide open the colors are gold and white. All I have to do is squint and the colors shift to black and blue. (Oh, excuse the pun)
1
Surely it's just a display issue? On my computer it looks clearly white and gold, no ambiguity at all. But displays are notoriously inconsistent, so I would never assume a color displayed on a screen is accurate to real life. The blue and black dress in the shop display is a VERY different color combination.
And everyone commenting on how this isn't an important issue - good gosh, shut up. If it's not important, don't waste your time. All those irrelevant comments make it hard to see the stats on who sees what color.
And everyone commenting on how this isn't an important issue - good gosh, shut up. If it's not important, don't waste your time. All those irrelevant comments make it hard to see the stats on who sees what color.
1
Mimi, I agree. I was able to tweak the image in Photoshop, using only contrast and brightness settings, to easily shift back and forth between both options.
2
Nope, if you click around and look at different versions, I've found that when I went back to the original tab where I initially saw white and gold, I now saw blue and black. Same picture, same tab (not reopened).
If I see white and gold now, I can switch it back to blue and black by looking away and then looking at it out of the very corner of my eye until it switches.
This line in the article "People who see the dress one way do not eventually begin to see it the other way, as is common with many optical illusions." is clearly wrong!
If I see white and gold now, I can switch it back to blue and black by looking away and then looking at it out of the very corner of my eye until it switches.
This line in the article "People who see the dress one way do not eventually begin to see it the other way, as is common with many optical illusions." is clearly wrong!
3
sorry I see a gold and blue dress, maybe the only person who does.
2
I do too. but after after looking it a hundred times (not usually by choice) I realize the gold is light brown--at least to me
No you're not the only one, we are in a small minority. The graphic in this article that shows "photoshop" color swatches from the photo, then the interpretations of white/gold as being in shadow, or blue/black as being washed out to both give something approximating what is in the picture. I'm used to looking at images in photoshop, and judged based on what I actually saw in small sections of the photo - but didn't then try to interpret based on lighting. I could tell it was at least somewhat over-exposed/washed out but did not automatically make leap to royal blue and black.
I see blue-tinged white and beige. Can't see it any other way. Not exactly like your perception, but close!
2
I have a small addendum to this conundrum:
When I first saw this picture it was early in the morning yesterday, when I was well rested. I immediately saw the correct black and blue dress, and could not see it any other way.
Then I stayed awake for about 30 hours.
Then I looked at the picture again and I was shocked to find it looking white and gold! I stared and then squinted at the picture and, pop, there it was again, blue and black.
I guess my tired eyes were less adept than my well-rested eyes at taking in the whole picture instantly and interpreting it as objects in space. Or maybe my cones were pooped!
When I first saw this picture it was early in the morning yesterday, when I was well rested. I immediately saw the correct black and blue dress, and could not see it any other way.
Then I stayed awake for about 30 hours.
Then I looked at the picture again and I was shocked to find it looking white and gold! I stared and then squinted at the picture and, pop, there it was again, blue and black.
I guess my tired eyes were less adept than my well-rested eyes at taking in the whole picture instantly and interpreting it as objects in space. Or maybe my cones were pooped!
1
One of the most popular story on Internet in a while
1
We have different concentrations of cones. We have the most red cones (50-76%), fewer green cones (20-44%) and fewest blue cones (1-7%). Some of us see 7 times more blue saturation than others. Those who see a blue dress don't see gold, they see a dark brown. Due to opponent processing the blue signal inhibits yellow signal going to the brain. Gold minus the yellow is brown. We don't have yellow cones, but add red and green signals to get yellow.
7
Very nice explanation. Given this, do you think we can say that objects have their own qualities, or that the ascription of qualities always entails a perceiver?
2
Esse est percipi, or, to be is to be perceived. We don't know the real world, we know only our perceptions of it.
2
Thank you, Mark and Greg, and for the reference to Bishop Berkeley. When two people look at a painting, or a dress, they don't see the same saturation of colors. Greg, and the bishop, have it right.
Yes, color perception and the brain's attempt to interpret stimuli from the brain are part of the story, but the bigger part is the inability of the camera in this case to accurately capture color of the dress. I found it easy enough to do a simple spectral analysis of the photo that revealed that it was light blue and gold. But those clearly are not the colors of the dress. The photo is washed out and over-exposed. Further complications arise when that image is reproduced on computer screens.
Personally, I prefer the light blue and gold color combination in the photo to the actual dark blue and black of the dress.
Personally, I prefer the light blue and gold color combination in the photo to the actual dark blue and black of the dress.
3
If I ever, ever see another article in the print edition regurgitating some mindless, pathetic 15-second internet vacuity that was also foisted upon me by the brain cell killing Yahoo News in order to check my e-mail, I will cancel my print subscription immediately.
5
This is actually rooted in deep and unsolved theoretical questions about the mind, mental functioning, and mental content. What is inside the head and what is outside, are questions involved in knowing how much of mind is the brain, and how valuable are our current computational theories of mind, (i.e. is the mind the brain, is it a computing machine?) These have obvious import to things like robots replacing human cognitive tasks, or how much we should invest in brain research. The issue is most prominently found in the philosopher Locke, and with what are the primary and secondary qualities of objects. This may seem arcane, but it arises in things like constitutional issues of natural rights. None of the above being small issues. And just as this instigated a vigorous debate on the internet, it is a serious and unresolved question in the theoretical thinking about mind.
6
I love how this meme has surfaced in public consciousness, causing real confusion and curiousity. People are honestly freaked out, others soberly explain, others complain that it means nothing. But actually, I would agree with you, this dress sparks deep questions. The unease and how people react to that unease attests to that. In many circles it is common knowledge that the universe is participatory, rather than given, but it isn't often demonstrated in such a playful and unexpected way.
4
I think that someone is playing games with the picture.
When I first saw the picture yesterday, on an old IBM Thinkpad/Centrino, the dress was definitely white with gold trim.
Today, on three different machines, one being the same Thinkpad above, and four different displays, the dress is definitely blue with black trim, that appears gold in places.
First, in the graphics are patches showing white/gold chaning to blue and black in steps. Note that whether the dress appears blue on black or white on gold, these patches do not change.
Second note that in the picture the area to the right of the waist band is totally blown out (white saturation). When the dress appears white with gold trim, this area is still over exposed, but not blown out.
The other colors behind the dress are rather consistent between the two views. There is the red roof and the yellow in the corner.
Monitors display using only three colors, red green and blue. White is all three colors at the same time. A saturated blue has very little red or green. Yellow is red and green together. To have the white become such a saturated blue with the yellow remaing the same is not likely.
Hence, I believe you are seeing two different pictures of the same scene.
When I first saw the picture yesterday, on an old IBM Thinkpad/Centrino, the dress was definitely white with gold trim.
Today, on three different machines, one being the same Thinkpad above, and four different displays, the dress is definitely blue with black trim, that appears gold in places.
First, in the graphics are patches showing white/gold chaning to blue and black in steps. Note that whether the dress appears blue on black or white on gold, these patches do not change.
Second note that in the picture the area to the right of the waist band is totally blown out (white saturation). When the dress appears white with gold trim, this area is still over exposed, but not blown out.
The other colors behind the dress are rather consistent between the two views. There is the red roof and the yellow in the corner.
Monitors display using only three colors, red green and blue. White is all three colors at the same time. A saturated blue has very little red or green. Yellow is red and green together. To have the white become such a saturated blue with the yellow remaing the same is not likely.
Hence, I believe you are seeing two different pictures of the same scene.
2
No. My son and I sat next to each other and looked at the same picture on the same screen at the same time. I reliably see blue and dark brown, he reliably sees white and gold. It's a difference in perception, not different images.
4
I too saw blue and dark brown on my cell phone, but on my computer this morning, it is more gold and dingy white...I think this is much ado about nothing! The devices aren't perfect where color is concerned.
1
Ok. I would be interested in how you perceive the three patches shown with the picture. Do they also change? Does the left patch change from white/gold to blue black?
I also believe if I download the picture and dump the image values, I will see the blue as having a high blue value and relatively low red and green values.
I stick to my theory.
I also believe if I download the picture and dump the image values, I will see the blue as having a high blue value and relatively low red and green values.
I stick to my theory.
1
I saw the dress immediately as a strong pastel blue and black. Looking at the photo of the dress in the shop I wondered how I could get a pastel blue from that shade. I found that by altering the angle of my laptop screen I could alter the strength of the shade. When the screen slanted away from me, the dress became strongly blue, when the screen slanted towards me the shade was much lighter.
The black did not altered except that when the color was strong there were glints of gold.
The black did not altered except that when the color was strong there were glints of gold.
I had the same effect with tilting the screen..just goes to show that you'd better ask for a sample and not trust your computer screen if exact color is important. Tilting the screen makes it look very much black and strong blue.
1
TN LCD are the worst at that, MVA/PVA LCD much better, and IPS LCD far, far better. That is why people who do lots of photo work and color work usually get IPS LCD and sometimes MVA/PVA LCD screens and never TN LCD screens.
I believe that old CRTs, plasma and OLED have even better viewing angles than IPS LCD.
I believe that old CRTs, plasma and OLED have even better viewing angles than IPS LCD.
Much of the discussion seems to assume that there are two camps - those who see the dress as white and gold, and those who see it as blue and black. But there is clearly a third camp - I see it as pale blue and brown, and so do a few other commentators. This third camp appears to be a distinct minority though.
As to why some people see it one way and then later see it another way I think in some cases this may be due to the changing angle of sunlight in the room. Our eyes and brain compensate for room illumination when perceiving colour. Look at this image at different times of the day and some people might see it differently.
I might also note that we don't all see colour the same way. Its been known for a while that there is variation in the gene for the LW opsin, found in one of our cones, which affects colour vision. Some people do in fact see the world to be redder than others depending on which version of the gene they have. More pedantically I should also note the colour vision has recently been found to be a lot more complex than previously thought. There are other types of photoreceptor in the eye, involved in controlling pupil dilation and the biological clock in response to light, but a few years ago we learnt they contribute to vision in some way we don't yet understand. Indeed we now know that the retina sends at least 12 types of information to the visual cortex but we don't what most of it is yet, or how much variation between people there is.
As to why some people see it one way and then later see it another way I think in some cases this may be due to the changing angle of sunlight in the room. Our eyes and brain compensate for room illumination when perceiving colour. Look at this image at different times of the day and some people might see it differently.
I might also note that we don't all see colour the same way. Its been known for a while that there is variation in the gene for the LW opsin, found in one of our cones, which affects colour vision. Some people do in fact see the world to be redder than others depending on which version of the gene they have. More pedantically I should also note the colour vision has recently been found to be a lot more complex than previously thought. There are other types of photoreceptor in the eye, involved in controlling pupil dilation and the biological clock in response to light, but a few years ago we learnt they contribute to vision in some way we don't yet understand. Indeed we now know that the retina sends at least 12 types of information to the visual cortex but we don't what most of it is yet, or how much variation between people there is.
8
And a 4th variation -- I see it as pale blue and gold.
2
Thank you!
I assumed that only I was seeing blue and brown. Initially, however, I thought it was white and gold in shadow.
I assumed that only I was seeing blue and brown. Initially, however, I thought it was white and gold in shadow.
2
Yes, I am one of a number of friends who see it as a periwinkle blue and some shade of light brown or sandstone . Thanks for validating our minority!
1
The effect is due to an overexposed photo with the wrong white balance for the ambient light from it was taken. Ou brain is responsible for the correction of how we interpret the colours, based on the ambient light. This picture, how it was taken, lead to two different interpretations: one tending to the blue edge of the white balance (blue and Black dress) and one tending to the yellow edge of white balance (white and gold dress).
7
To all commenters who lambasted the NYT for carrying this news:
Please lighten up!
I found the phenomenon fascinating. I posted below regarding the ability to get a smooth transition from white/gold to blue/black by tilting my laptop screen and in a reply to SarahCork, the effects of ambient light and the result of a printout - smack in the middle.
That I found this article of interest does not mean that I will stop reading Nicholas Kristoff religiously or cease to read most of the Int'l NYT daily. Nor does it mean that I have or will become a "trivial" human being. Simply a curious one. Reading "serious" articles is neither necessary nor sufficient to be involved in positive activities. And those who are trying to do some good in the world need some diversion as well.
Furthermore, I think this phenomenon has extreme importance in both the physical and social spheres. The fact that so many people became involved, and that their reactions were so varied attests to something very fundamental and universal.
I live in Israel, where too many people see everything as either "white and gold" or "black and blue." This is especially true when tunnel vision prevents the background clues from giving a more accurate perception (as explained in the accompanying article).
Similarly, the effects of shadows (also explained in accompanying article) makes one think about what effects the shadows cast by a hoodie can have on our perception of the face beneath...
Please lighten up!
I found the phenomenon fascinating. I posted below regarding the ability to get a smooth transition from white/gold to blue/black by tilting my laptop screen and in a reply to SarahCork, the effects of ambient light and the result of a printout - smack in the middle.
That I found this article of interest does not mean that I will stop reading Nicholas Kristoff religiously or cease to read most of the Int'l NYT daily. Nor does it mean that I have or will become a "trivial" human being. Simply a curious one. Reading "serious" articles is neither necessary nor sufficient to be involved in positive activities. And those who are trying to do some good in the world need some diversion as well.
Furthermore, I think this phenomenon has extreme importance in both the physical and social spheres. The fact that so many people became involved, and that their reactions were so varied attests to something very fundamental and universal.
I live in Israel, where too many people see everything as either "white and gold" or "black and blue." This is especially true when tunnel vision prevents the background clues from giving a more accurate perception (as explained in the accompanying article).
Similarly, the effects of shadows (also explained in accompanying article) makes one think about what effects the shadows cast by a hoodie can have on our perception of the face beneath...
61
You are a mensch!
2
Thank you!!
Honestly, this is really stupid. How can be a topic like this be hyped in the way it is. Symptomatic of our times, how bored we really are.
6
You don't see the larger lessons we might learn from a situation in which people have the exact same experience and perceive it differently? I find the science of the visual differences fascinating, and I think it's nothing short of joyous that millions of people are realizing (even in this limited and frivolous example) that we can't always presume to understand the experiences of others - even when we're sitting in the same room. Isn't that a wonderful thing?
8
@ CC: Thank you for your response. Yes, I know there are different realities and everyone basically has their own perception which is indeed fascinating. I just got fed up of this 'social media' hype and this dress.
1
Does the ny times think it's funny? It's changing the color of the dress. When i first saw it it was white and gold, and when i looked back for a second it was blue and black, and then white and gold. I don't find this funny at all..in fact it's kind of twisted
2
"White and gold" vs "blue and black" is a false dichotomy. I see blue and brown (or blue and gold if you want to be fancy).
10
Me too, and I had to read the comments to see if I was the only one since the article didn't mention that 3rd possibility.
1
That's what we see at our house, too.
1
I just agreed with whatever colors my wife saw ... I try to pick my battles ...
20
Stories like this make me wonder whether there is any hope for our species.
6
The ‘100 Million Colors’ Lady Has an Opinion on That Dress
She says you are all right.
http://nym.ag/1wur4uO?mid=emailshare_scienceofus
She says you are all right.
http://nym.ag/1wur4uO?mid=emailshare_scienceofus
I saw it first as clearly white and gold and then after focusing for 20 minutes using various techniques, I saw black and blue. No going back now. If you want to see more to this story, check out Unrestrained News​. http://unrestrainednews.com/2015/02/28/is-this-dress-white-and-gold-or-b...
That dress? Now there's an Android app for that... https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.tegtap.dress&hl=en
1
Wow, reading all these comments of people claiming it's the overexposure or something-- YOU aren't paying attention. Millions of people have looked at this photo side-by-side with others seeing the EXACT same image on the EXACT same device yet some see it correctly as black and blue and others (like me) see it incorrectly as white and gold. I have a tip for you folks rigidly clinging to lunkheaded ideas about over-exposure and screen brightness-- don't ever try to understand particle/wave physics, or read anything of what Einstein discovered about the speed of light and spacetime.
11
We're talking about confusion over the color of the picture of the dress, right? Not the color of the dress itself?
6
Mostly about the overexposed image of the dress, but the fabric and dress design may have contributed to the effect.
Yeah. I'm looking at an LCD computer display in a room illuminated by sunlight at 9:45 AM, with a blue sky, reflected off some green evergreens, and white snow. I claim I am not color-blind.
I see lavender and brown/gold.
I see lavender and brown/gold.
1
It's white and gold and anybody who sees anything else is color blind
2
As science explains, color of an object is not its own color, it absorbs its color from the kind of light which falls on it.... that is the logic here ... and there are some colors which completely change into different color when in different lights ....
1
This dress controversy makes me laugh. I'm a senior graphic designer and nobody's mentioning the RGB color calibration of computers, TVs, iPads, smart phones, etc. From one device to the other, calibration is different, therefore the colors will look different. Then add the science behind how the human eye reads light, the time of day they're looking at it, how much light and what type of light is in the room... and nobody will see these the same.
7
OK -- I have a fancy, calibrated graphic arts monitor. I saw this article yesterday. The photo (not necessarily the DRESS in reality) showed an off-white dress (perhaps a very pale gray color or a white dress in shadow) with brown or brownish gold trim. The CONTRAST with the B&W print garment behind it was very clear.
I didn't stare at it, but did show it to a few friends. Then I COPIED the photo onto my desktop to later put it in Photoshop and play around with it.
THIS MORNING, without touching or looking at it again, the photo clearly appears different. The Trim is now clearly black, and the dress -- while still not royal blue as it is in reality -- is a warm periwinkle color....distinctly blue and not off-white or pale grey.
So that's odd. Something IS going on with it. I look at photos for A LIVING and I can't recall anything similar to this.
I didn't stare at it, but did show it to a few friends. Then I COPIED the photo onto my desktop to later put it in Photoshop and play around with it.
THIS MORNING, without touching or looking at it again, the photo clearly appears different. The Trim is now clearly black, and the dress -- while still not royal blue as it is in reality -- is a warm periwinkle color....distinctly blue and not off-white or pale grey.
So that's odd. Something IS going on with it. I look at photos for A LIVING and I can't recall anything similar to this.
11
What part of people being in the same room, looking at the same image on the same device in the same light with a screen having the same RGB color calibration at the same second-- standing literally shoulder to shoulder, head by head, eyeball beside eyeball-- yet some seeing it as a black and blue dress and others, right beside them seeing it as a white and gold one don't you understand?
5
Lynn,
'The Dress Controversy' is fun and just hope it does not put a French artist in a flutter since she's past 90, but her niece with a gift for the camera will debate this with her over tea and biscuits. Waiting for one of us to come up with the color 'pink and green' or better still flamboyant red.
'The Dress Controversy' is fun and just hope it does not put a French artist in a flutter since she's past 90, but her niece with a gift for the camera will debate this with her over tea and biscuits. Waiting for one of us to come up with the color 'pink and green' or better still flamboyant red.
1
Using both my computer monitor and my 50 inch TV I opened this article in two windows and dragged one onto the TV. Then I reduced the magnification simultaneously on both screens until I had reached the smallest photo size possible. At that magnification the dress is clearly blue and black in both photos. However, as I then increase the magnification the larger the photo becomes the more I see it as white and gold until at 150%-- which is where I usually do my reading-- the gold is absolutely radiant.
What a fascinating and educational phenomenon for some of us, to keep us humble and wary about our own capacity to get thing completely wrong-- not just factually but perceptually as well.
What a fascinating and educational phenomenon for some of us, to keep us humble and wary about our own capacity to get thing completely wrong-- not just factually but perceptually as well.
13
I don't know why this has become such a debacle. It is funny though... so I'll add my 2 cents. Upon first glance- to me, it looked like a bad picture of a white & tan/nude dress that was cast in a like a moonlit shadow. But then, after looking at it for a little longer, it looked like what it actually is: a bad, overexposed (you can see all of the extra light and glare in the background), and therefore muted looking picture of a blue & black dress. Either way, it was obvious from the start that it was a poorly lit picture (too much or too little). And the correct answer is too much. Sheer, thin rayon type dresses never really fair well in pictures on the hanger anyway. It is a fun mind game though- if you thought it was white/tan at first- look at it again and while you're looking at it, tell yourself it is an overexposed & glare laden picture of a blue/black dress, and it kind of changes to the latter before your very eyes. Weird! haha
1
A student sent it in my mailbox. This afternoon I saw it clearly as blue and black when I showed it to my daughters. Now, after seeing the picture on this article (which I saw white and gold) I went back to the same file my student sent. I saw it white and gold! Any other explanation beyond camera optics? It was the same file, and one person on this article says that if you see it one way, hardly you will see it the other way. ???!!! For me is interesting. Like NPR commented: is our fascination with color and be right about it. :) plus, is good to change the depressing news.
1
Obviously it was an overexposed photo. But it's just one more example of how you can't trust color fidelity on a computer screen.
4
I agree with you. The effect is due an overexposed photo, with the wrong white balance for the ambient Light from it was taken.
Case Solved! I can see both!...it was all white and gold and I couldn't see how anyone could claim otherwise. then after staring a great while and thinking about it I started to shift the focus of my eyes and try to see the light and shading differently. it can look both ways to everyone if you focus on the lighting in a different way...I've been laughing switching it back and forth at will now. It's all how you look at it ...it's an optical illusion! It's been a fun day with this dress :) And to think I almost caved and agreed that it's blue with gold lace, so I'd shut up about it already. Did anyone else ask their partner to confirm the colour of things around the house to prove their vision isn't screwed up?
3
Amy, it is an optical illusion with some fine camera experts and photographers to add their input. In French, this is known as a 'Trompe L'Oeuil' or fooling the eye. In the meantime, the dress to my mind is a splendid rich dark gold and stark white, while the camera takes us on a merry ride.
Blue? A French artist in Paris past 90 who sends her friends her lap-top art work is going to enjoy this. She often asks for my color preferences when it comes to difference shades, a more vivid pink, a darker green? We were just discussing her latest entitled 'Light threads of color' which reminded me of the Sahara Desert. She wears white all the time with her three younger generations including the new arrival, and there is bling in the background. Her artwork is brilliant and vividly colored, nothing bland to be found.
Off this goes to Paris for her sharp eye with 'What color is this dress?'. At her age, she is more vivacious than any 14 year old that I have met, and thank you Mr. Jonathan Mahler for what might be known as a 'Trompe L'Oeuil'. Fun!
Off this goes to Paris for her sharp eye with 'What color is this dress?'. At her age, she is more vivacious than any 14 year old that I have met, and thank you Mr. Jonathan Mahler for what might be known as a 'Trompe L'Oeuil'. Fun!
2
Look at the background. The whole thing is a function of the lighting, with som e help from photoshop.
1
Every time I look at an image of the dress in a new window it is white and gold, but when I scroll down the page then back to the image again it is blue and black. How bizarre!
2
Huh. Look at the full image. Then scroll down so that the glare in the viewer's upper-right disappears. For me went from white-gold to blue-brownish black. (Waiting for the next media blitz that reveals that the dress is, in fact, a pineapple.)
8
I am so confused by this. Last night my daughter sent me the link about the dress. I saw it as white and gold, she saw it as blue and black. She was stressing out because she could not see it any other way, and I could not see it any other way.
I saved the image to my phone and posted it on Facebook. When I woke up today, it was still white and gold. I drove to school, still white and gold. While at school, you guessed it, white and gold. In each of these settings I was exposed to different lighting, but the image remained, white and gold.
On my way home from school I called my husband and we argued about it. He made me so angry, not because he wouldn't agree, but because he speaks in a condescending tone. After I hung up the phone, I was furious. I looked at Facebook and the dress was now.....blue and black (or dark brown). I was awestruck. I was in shock. I thought, NO WAY! I decided to go look at the image I saved, and sure enough, it is also blue and black (or dark brown).
The websites that posted both versions side by side, I now only see in shades of blue and black. I cannot see the white and gold, AT ALL.
Just mind-blown. Do emotions play a role in color perception? I believe it is obvious emotions have an effect on how we perceive reality, but to change your perception of color? I just do not understand.
I saved the image to my phone and posted it on Facebook. When I woke up today, it was still white and gold. I drove to school, still white and gold. While at school, you guessed it, white and gold. In each of these settings I was exposed to different lighting, but the image remained, white and gold.
On my way home from school I called my husband and we argued about it. He made me so angry, not because he wouldn't agree, but because he speaks in a condescending tone. After I hung up the phone, I was furious. I looked at Facebook and the dress was now.....blue and black (or dark brown). I was awestruck. I was in shock. I thought, NO WAY! I decided to go look at the image I saved, and sure enough, it is also blue and black (or dark brown).
The websites that posted both versions side by side, I now only see in shades of blue and black. I cannot see the white and gold, AT ALL.
Just mind-blown. Do emotions play a role in color perception? I believe it is obvious emotions have an effect on how we perceive reality, but to change your perception of color? I just do not understand.
3
Today, I was introduced to the stupid discussion whether the dress is blue/black or gold/white, and I was asked where I stand. Technically it's both.... In a negative the dress is white and gold in a positive it's blue and black....In real life the dress is made blue and black by the manufacturer. Only due to light and angle of the optics do we see the phantom (complimentary) colors of gold and white in the original picture of a blue and black dress...both are true, lets move on. http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u14/ProjectDesigns/dress_zpspz4ku3uf.png
1
Someone might have mentioned this earlier, but by altering the angle of my laptop screen and lowering the screen brightness to its lowest setting, the dress changed from white & gold to blue & black. I was firmly in the white & gold camp, and thought this was a vast social media gas-lighting experiment, but now I think it's quite easily explained. And contrary to what the article suggests- that people are incapable of seeing both white/gold & black/blue, actually, all one needs to do is change the angle and brightness settings on their screen. Could it be that simple? My sense of sanity (and faith in friends aligning with the black & blue team) has been restored.
3
It's not about the dress per se but rather about how two people looking at the same image in same media in same room see such different things. In our amily our kids saw blue black. I can see blue but black? Can't. See it.
2
The dress apparently is on sale for 50 quid and is blue and black. Due to modern technology, we can now safely say that sometimes the Camera occasionally tells fibs :)
1
I spent all day researching that damn dress until my eyes bled black and blue no matter how many times or how long I tried to play mental gymnastics with my brain enough to twist it into seeing white and gold or any other color combination. By the time my hair began to hurt? I decided I'd finally had 'dressgate' enough to consider committing myself into a facility for a complete mental evaluation and somewhere with a full service spa too. Stop the world. I want to get off.
I read as many scientific articles as my poor 'all art, all the time' brain could stomach until the most plausible theory developed as my story and I'm sticking to it. My pick is theory #4 in the link below:
http://www.ibtimes.com/dressgate-color-theories-possible-explanations-4-...
I think I see the correct color combo of black and blue immediately and properly is thanks to over 30 years of conditioning in the design field. Perceiving and qualifying the data my eyes send my brain is second nature by now and I'm unconscious of the skillsets I'm using to do so. I've been well practiced in discerning the tiniest nuances in color, hue and shading in much the same fashion and method as paint artists use. All jobs require perfecting specific skills. Mine is no different.
Considering the number of Flying Purple People Eaters and Flying Spaghetti Monsters currently circling my house in the blowback from 'dressgate' today? It's official: I've lost my ever-loving mind.
I read as many scientific articles as my poor 'all art, all the time' brain could stomach until the most plausible theory developed as my story and I'm sticking to it. My pick is theory #4 in the link below:
http://www.ibtimes.com/dressgate-color-theories-possible-explanations-4-...
I think I see the correct color combo of black and blue immediately and properly is thanks to over 30 years of conditioning in the design field. Perceiving and qualifying the data my eyes send my brain is second nature by now and I'm unconscious of the skillsets I'm using to do so. I've been well practiced in discerning the tiniest nuances in color, hue and shading in much the same fashion and method as paint artists use. All jobs require perfecting specific skills. Mine is no different.
Considering the number of Flying Purple People Eaters and Flying Spaghetti Monsters currently circling my house in the blowback from 'dressgate' today? It's official: I've lost my ever-loving mind.
3
Sheila,
First viewing is perhaps the best to determine our sighting of this dress. Thanks for including your theory #4 in your link. One can always learn something new.
First viewing is perhaps the best to determine our sighting of this dress. Thanks for including your theory #4 in your link. One can always learn something new.
Very intriguing that after all we all see things differently ? that exicites me. How ever, I find it hard to believe that people See gold As blue ?? (they be gutted if they stumbled on a few gold bars in a hedge) All this nonsense unfortunately seems to be over a overexposed or a badly captured photo. Or just people with poor eye sight, poor lighting, outdated over worked phones / laptops ect. Might I also point out if this colour perception issue was so common I would think The high fashion brands would of been all over it... Blessings
So do all the people who see this as white and gold feel the picture is in shade/underexposed, and all the black and blue people think the picture was overexposed or had too much flash?
2
reading through the comments, it appears no one saw what I see -- the dress is gold (dark, to be sure) and shaded white in the photo at the top of the story and black and blue in the photo where it is hung with other dresses in a display window.
2
Stephen Beard,
Your comment made me look this time at the 'white' jacket which looks as if it is made of silk.
Your comment made me look this time at the 'white' jacket which looks as if it is made of silk.
Thanks for your comment. I see exactly the same thing you do. I viewed similar pictures yesterday with the same effect.
2
I am so annoyed! I clearly saw white and gold until I read the graphic breakdown explaining visual cues that influence whether you attribute washed-out lighting or bright lighting (along with the lack of skin tone or other color identifiers near the dress). Out of nowhere I then saw the blue and black dress! It's driving me mad because I MUCH preferred white and gold. Darn cones and rods.
2
haha, the white/gold dress looked attractive to me. The royal BLUE and black dress looks cheap & shoddy, and like it is polyester stretch material. Not attractive at all!
Different tastes, I guess.
Different tastes, I guess.
2
Oly,
With hearts and coronets, the dress for the wedding is white and gold, while this photo persists in making us also see blue & black tones. It gives a new meaning to fifty shades of grey.
With hearts and coronets, the dress for the wedding is white and gold, while this photo persists in making us also see blue & black tones. It gives a new meaning to fifty shades of grey.
May I suggest increasing the brightness of your screen to see white and gold, lower the brightness to see blue and black. This is an exposure and white balance issue with the photograph which is amplified by the device you are view the image from.
1
"People who see the dress one way do not eventually begin to see it the other way, as is common with many optical illusions."
Well, I did start to see it the other way (went from white/gold to blue/black) and it was an amazingly jarring experience when it happened. It's a very odd feeling to be confronted with the undeniable realization, even if you knew it in a textbook sense already, that our brains perform so much manipulation on the input from our senses before it's presented to our consciousness as reality.
Well, I did start to see it the other way (went from white/gold to blue/black) and it was an amazingly jarring experience when it happened. It's a very odd feeling to be confronted with the undeniable realization, even if you knew it in a textbook sense already, that our brains perform so much manipulation on the input from our senses before it's presented to our consciousness as reality.
4
Yes, me too! I saw white and gold, and could not believe others were seeing the same image as blue and black. Thought it must be a difference in monitors, or something.
I turned and asked my 5 year old son what he saw. I looked back...and it was clearly blue and black. Whatever I do now - squint, cover part of the picture, etc - I see it as clearly blue and black.
Bizarre!
My 5 year old saw it as blue and black - I just asked him what colors the dress were, didn't tell him what I saw, of course.
Incidentally, a few years ago I took a color acuity test (for work, as we need to be able to confirm color-matching and only employees who score well on the test are allowed to sign for color match approvals) and I was one of only a few in the company with a perfect score.
So...I supposedly have "perfect" color acuity...but I'm completely being fooled by this dress. Bizarre! (And perhaps I need to re-take that test.)
I turned and asked my 5 year old son what he saw. I looked back...and it was clearly blue and black. Whatever I do now - squint, cover part of the picture, etc - I see it as clearly blue and black.
Bizarre!
My 5 year old saw it as blue and black - I just asked him what colors the dress were, didn't tell him what I saw, of course.
Incidentally, a few years ago I took a color acuity test (for work, as we need to be able to confirm color-matching and only employees who score well on the test are allowed to sign for color match approvals) and I was one of only a few in the company with a perfect score.
So...I supposedly have "perfect" color acuity...but I'm completely being fooled by this dress. Bizarre! (And perhaps I need to re-take that test.)
Hate to be the oddball, but the dress looks light blue and brownish gold on my screen. Obviously the camera misinterpreted the colors, but why different people see those colors differently is an interesting puzzle.
5
The gold, brown, and bronze family of colors are a bit overlapping and open to interpretation. Their RGB (red green blue) values start highest at red, lower for green, and then lowest at blue. At a certain point, as any of those colors get too dark, they appear black. To me it was black, albeit not pitch black, and I was ignoring the color aspect of it. Others are picking the color out of it. In line with seeing the dress in a more illuminated sense, the gold people where brightening up the blue and seeing it as white.
1
If I look at the thing from close and above on my pc screen, I get gold and white. Looking from below and to the side, I see almost black and blue. Head-on it's light blue and brownish gold. I'm pretty sure changing brightness and contrast and adding some blue on my photoshop ripoff would give an approximation of the actual black and blue colors.
3
I saw it as obviously white and gold in dim light. No way does the gold look even remotely black...that is until I compared it to the apparently white and black garment just to its left. Then I was able to get the illusion to flip to black and blue...amazing!
People who see the dress one way do not eventually begin to see it the other way"
so much inaccuracy. me and PLENTY of people i know have seen it both ways. at this point, it's changed back and forth so much for me i can't even keep count anymore.
so much inaccuracy. me and PLENTY of people i know have seen it both ways. at this point, it's changed back and forth so much for me i can't even keep count anymore.
3
What we have here is an overexposed, or just badly taken, photo.
The graphic shown later is a substandard illustration of how color changes in relation to what is around it.
I skimmed through the comments and was surprised not one mention of the great book I had and I would have thought those who attended art school had: For a truly excellent in depth education on colors please see Joseph Albers "Interaction of Color".
I am lucky enough to have a limited edition silk screen printed set.
The graphic shown later is a substandard illustration of how color changes in relation to what is around it.
I skimmed through the comments and was surprised not one mention of the great book I had and I would have thought those who attended art school had: For a truly excellent in depth education on colors please see Joseph Albers "Interaction of Color".
I am lucky enough to have a limited edition silk screen printed set.
1
This photo of this dress will be in textbooks about perception from now until the end of civilization. It will be more enduring and well known than any work from most professional artists currently working. It might not be about war and violence, but it matters nevertheless.
4
I think you might be right.
it was gold and yellow at first then i looked an hour later and it was black and blue
1
First time I looked at it, I thought it was obviously black and blue. Now it looks obviously gold and yellow!
1
It is primarily the overexposure of the photograph. I see the blue and black dress as I am sure most of us do. Yet due to different screens and varying degrees of lighting on this photo, it also easily appears white and gold.
An easy way to see this illusion is to take out your cell phone, turn on your camera function and look at this photo on a laptop, tablet or home monitor screen. Angle the lens just about to the right or left and move closer to the screen.
See, it's no big deal. We now resume consuming ourselves with dread and fear.
An easy way to see this illusion is to take out your cell phone, turn on your camera function and look at this photo on a laptop, tablet or home monitor screen. Angle the lens just about to the right or left and move closer to the screen.
See, it's no big deal. We now resume consuming ourselves with dread and fear.
5
PipeCleanerArms,
This viewer would never have given it a second thought because it looks a rich dark beige and white with some possible dazzle in the lines. Agree that it is a bit 'wicked' because on closer look towards the hem, I saw a tone of blue which I also believe is slight overexposure. Men and women often have a debate over certain colors. My husband, when looking for his 'green' sweater, to my mind is in search of his blue.
In the meantime, let us never find ourselves separating the blues from the whites. A fun article and photo, before we find ourselves back once again in the gloomy shadows of other news.
This viewer would never have given it a second thought because it looks a rich dark beige and white with some possible dazzle in the lines. Agree that it is a bit 'wicked' because on closer look towards the hem, I saw a tone of blue which I also believe is slight overexposure. Men and women often have a debate over certain colors. My husband, when looking for his 'green' sweater, to my mind is in search of his blue.
In the meantime, let us never find ourselves separating the blues from the whites. A fun article and photo, before we find ourselves back once again in the gloomy shadows of other news.
1
I've looked on TV, iPhone, desktop, laptop, and iPad ... each time I see the image in a new window - regardless of the media, it is white and gold. Scroll down the page and back up and it is blue and black. Clealry that has nothing to do with the quality of the image, as it's the identical image being perceived 2 different ways.
3
It looks distinctly white and gold to me -- but I notice that if I drag the browser window over to my other screen, it is just blue enough that, if I work at it, I can briefly see the blue and black interpretation. Drag it back to the original window, it is impossible to see anything but white and gold.
Color reproduction is one of the things that computers do very badly. (Not because it can't be done well, but they just weren't designed to get it right.) This may not be the whole story, but I'm sure it is part of it.
Color reproduction is one of the things that computers do very badly. (Not because it can't be done well, but they just weren't designed to get it right.) This may not be the whole story, but I'm sure it is part of it.
6
Thanks for your report. When I look at it on a desktop display it looks more or less gold and white. On a laptop display, from certain angles, it takes on an eerie black and blue color. That's nothing new (to me anyway), but I agree that the display type and viewing angle must be part of the story.
Color patterns are well known at tricking us and what we have here...is a pattern dress. Our brains are getting in the way and making corrections, as mentioned in the article, as we perceive glare or shadow. Another issue is that gold fabrics, along with their different textures, cover a wide range of different colors with variations in red, green and blue ratios. If you take a look at specific pixels of this image, you will not see gold. Add different
pixels together (which are not gold) and you will begin to see gold (dark gold to me). And this is not really gold, but what you would think is gold in fabric form, reflecting light at different angles. Brown and (reflective) black also share similar RGB ratios as gold. So no surprise that we disagree here. Blue, as opposed to black, should be more clear cut. I'm seeing grays, blues and purples at the pixel level, so the white/gold people must be getting tricked and/or lacking the blue eye cone cells.
pixels together (which are not gold) and you will begin to see gold (dark gold to me). And this is not really gold, but what you would think is gold in fabric form, reflecting light at different angles. Brown and (reflective) black also share similar RGB ratios as gold. So no surprise that we disagree here. Blue, as opposed to black, should be more clear cut. I'm seeing grays, blues and purples at the pixel level, so the white/gold people must be getting tricked and/or lacking the blue eye cone cells.
2
Interesting and helpful explanation. At this stage, tempting to see if the colors of the dress look different to one's eye depending on one's mood. Here it's without doubt a dark gold tan color and starch white, and appropriate for the Mother of the Bride who usually would not wear black and blue to her happy daughter's wedding.
I haven't seen anything on the web about people seeing different colors based on their mood. I've read one person say being outside exposed to sunlight altered the appearance when he came inside to see it. I've read another saying tilting his screen made it change. I think we can all relate to that. The gold appears to me when I separate the black from the blue in paintbrush and zoom in.
1
The points of interest in this article are not with the garish dress, but the location of the poster. She is stranded in Oban Scotland and goes to university in Nort Uist. Oh my goodness, my dream where to be is in the Hebrides. I have so wanted to be in as many of the inner and outter Scottish islands and just can't seem to get there. She should be taking photos of the places she is so lucky to be a part of while so many of us drool. The beauty of the physical and animal world there is most keen and I've heard tell the cuisine is to die for. I cast my vote for Islay.
1
Perhaps it's because I was a photojournalist for so many years, but I don't get the debate (Although the relativity discussion is interesting). That nasty bluish hue (and the blown out background) immediately indicates to me a white balance and exposure issue. I don't need a context (beyond that) to intuitively know the dress as shown is not what it appears. You will often see a more subtle version of this around 4-6pm on Sundays during NFL season. A setting sun paired with the height of the stadium will cast the field into shade. On tight shots, exposure compensation and white balance issues inevitably show a form of this.
6
The thing that's most incredible to me about this story is how, even in this day and age, we as a species never seemed to grasp before just how drastically different we could perceive something as basic as colors in a photograph.
What's almost as amazing is there doesn't seem to be any true consensus as to why this is happening. Even this publication's other article on it gives multiple theories.
What's almost as amazing is there doesn't seem to be any true consensus as to why this is happening. Even this publication's other article on it gives multiple theories.
5
When I looked at the photo this morning, the dress looked ckealy, obviously white and gold. I could not see blue at all, even though I was trying to see it. Then this afternoon, as I read the explanation article, the one with the stripey diagrams, the white stripes on the diagrams slowly shifted and started to look blue. Now when I look at the dress, I can no longer see white, even if I try. It looks blue. I put it away, and then looked at the original image aagain a couple hours later, and I still see blue. I can no longer see it the way I saw it this morning. So weird.
8
This is happening to me, exactly. Very odd! Time of day a possibility as well...how much light in our own rooms acting on our eyes/brain?
1
the same thing happened to me as i was reading the accompanying explanation. i scrolled up and all of sudden the dress i had just seen as white and gold turned to blue and black. i went back to the front page and then saw it as white and gold. depending on which part of the explanation i am reading, the picture changes from white and gold to blue and black. It is absolutely fascinating --
1
I'm having the opposite experience. The picture looked clearly blue and black to me this afternoon and now it looks white and gold,
1
I'm not going through all the comments on an article about a dress to find out, but has anyone considered that this was the result of a bad white balance in the camera? If the camera "thought" the blue area was white, it would have tried to adjust the overall color of the scene by adding lots of yellow (the opposite of blue). This would have resulted in the blue being rendered (almost) white and the black taking on the gold hue we see.
2
That brings up the question, are we arguing about what colors the image has or what colors the dress really has? We know the colors of the physical dress now. I believe the image file (the dress processed into digital form) is showing blue and a color, by its RGB values, that is open to interpretation.
3
Scott-- I refuse to read an entire article on this subject, but did read the sidebar, which attempts to to provide a technical explanation for why we might see a dress that, in reality is blue and black, rendered as white and gold in a photo. The Times' explanation centers around colors looking different in low-light situations than they do in bright light. While this is true, to some extent, the phenomenon wouldn't explain the stark difference in colors between the properly white balanced photo we see of the blue and black dress as compared with its rendering as gold and white(-ish) in the other photo.
This isn't a comparison of a photo against reality, but rather of two photos-- one of which, I'm contending, was improperly white balanced when the camera "assumed" the dress' blue was supposed to be white and tried to compensate by adding yellow.
This isn't a comparison of a photo against reality, but rather of two photos-- one of which, I'm contending, was improperly white balanced when the camera "assumed" the dress' blue was supposed to be white and tried to compensate by adding yellow.
1
Scott,
No need to argue or we will all be seeing the color blue. In the meantime, an original interpretation on your part.
No need to argue or we will all be seeing the color blue. In the meantime, an original interpretation on your part.
The dress was photographed in the shade. In doping so, more skylight (blue) is lighting the dress compared with warmer sunlight. Sunlight is 5600 degrees Kelvin, while skylight is 8000-10,000 degrees Kelvin (depending on high high an altitude you are).
Anyone who reads their digital camera manual would know this, and in the "olden days of film", photographer would use warming filters or cooling filters depending on the nature of the lighting.
If that's not a logical answer, then we have the nature of the fabric. If you've ever gone to a disco (Excuse my giving everyone a clues to my age) and danced under black light, you'd know that white becomes blue. Some fabrics reflect light differently and perhaps there were some brighteners in the fabric.
Why this even made the news is beyond me.
Anyone who reads their digital camera manual would know this, and in the "olden days of film", photographer would use warming filters or cooling filters depending on the nature of the lighting.
If that's not a logical answer, then we have the nature of the fabric. If you've ever gone to a disco (Excuse my giving everyone a clues to my age) and danced under black light, you'd know that white becomes blue. Some fabrics reflect light differently and perhaps there were some brighteners in the fabric.
Why this even made the news is beyond me.
1
When my laptop screen is almost vertical the dress is blue and brown. Tilting about 5-10 degrees forward creates white and gold. Tilting about 15-20 degrees back creates dark blue and black. Tilting forward and back shows a nice smooth progression of the color changes. (Of course, I have myopia, presbyopia, astigmatism, glaucoma and cataracts.) LLAP.
17
Thx for the tilting tip; I hadn't tried that before. I see the white and gold now when tilting my screen forward. I don't really ever see the dark blue and black, though, even when I tilt my screen back. Straight on, I see light bluish purple (lilac) and green -- but that's probably because I'm deuteranomalous...
1
Dr D, I believe you have solved the mystery. As I move my laptop screen forward and back, it is clearly white and gold the more I move the screen towards me and becomes blue and black as I move the screen away from me. Previously I could only see the dress as white and gold. I suspect this entire discussion is based on the digital image and the angle at which it is viewed. If this was a printed image, I doubt we would be arguing. Good on ya!
2
Hi Sarah - you made just made my day! I posted last night from Tel Aviv - and my only light source was from the ceiling. It's now morning and my only light source is from the window behind my laptop. The angles are now a bit different - but the concept is the same. I also took your suggestion and printed the image. It's almost smack in between the extremes! golden brown (or brownish gold) and a nice light blue.
2
Always inspiring to see the Times cover important issues.
10
A very wonderful Heisenberg creation, whatever its color.
1
In 2 of the pictures the dress is clearly white and gold. In the picture of the dress outside with 2 other dresses, it's clearly blue and black. So it's not a matter of perception. They're either 2 different dresses, or the colors in the photographs are innacurate, which is not at all unusual.
4
Your comment is a testament to mind and perception of reality. Aka denial. This is not at all two different dresses nor is it two different images. it is the same image of the same dress. Earlier I saw it as white and gold, three hours ago I saw it completely as blue and black and now I see it as white and gold again. And I'm a graphic designer so I deal with color all day long.
3
Getting more into what the camera may have done:
The photo perhaps ended up as it did because the camera exposed more for the outside and probably made the whole dress near pitch but it perhaps saw a ton of the rich blue in it when it tried to figure out the white balance and also saw a lot of shadow so it might have tried to compensate by setting a golden white balance to counter the blue and shadows.
So the golden balance it added probably reduced the intensity of the blue a bit and then when the deep shadows were raised that reduced the blue saturation even more and you ended up with the blueish white.
The black lace was probably measured as very dark gray and then the compensating white balance added a bit of a gold tone to the gray and with little signal any native issues with the camera sensor skewing away from perfect balance all got exaggerated when the dress shadows were brought up so the black turned to dull gold? Although there are tones even darker than the lace and there is still some detail so I'm not sure if the underexposure was quite that extreme for that to have happened. Hard to tell. Whatever the case the camera got tricked and messed up badly or the processing was done in a messy way.
The photo perhaps ended up as it did because the camera exposed more for the outside and probably made the whole dress near pitch but it perhaps saw a ton of the rich blue in it when it tried to figure out the white balance and also saw a lot of shadow so it might have tried to compensate by setting a golden white balance to counter the blue and shadows.
So the golden balance it added probably reduced the intensity of the blue a bit and then when the deep shadows were raised that reduced the blue saturation even more and you ended up with the blueish white.
The black lace was probably measured as very dark gray and then the compensating white balance added a bit of a gold tone to the gray and with little signal any native issues with the camera sensor skewing away from perfect balance all got exaggerated when the dress shadows were brought up so the black turned to dull gold? Although there are tones even darker than the lace and there is still some detail so I'm not sure if the underexposure was quite that extreme for that to have happened. Hard to tell. Whatever the case the camera got tricked and messed up badly or the processing was done in a messy way.
1
XYZ: The explanation in the Times graphic is as correct as any. A lot of what you say about what the camera did is right, but it just so happens that the final image with the incorrectly overexposed blue/black dress and warm shifted color balance falls at a strange perceptual tipping point that is very susceptible to top down influence of where the light is coming from and what illumination the dress is in.
I viewed the image on an calibrated IPS monitor, originally saw white/gold, then changed to blue/black, then back. Mostly I'm stuck on blue/black now, but it was definitely white/gold to begin with.
The situation is analogous to these types of illusions which all related to the source of illumination: http://brainden.com/color-illusions.htm
This is also a good discussion about bistable stimuli: http://pensees.pascallisch.net/?p=1885
I viewed the image on an calibrated IPS monitor, originally saw white/gold, then changed to blue/black, then back. Mostly I'm stuck on blue/black now, but it was definitely white/gold to begin with.
The situation is analogous to these types of illusions which all related to the source of illumination: http://brainden.com/color-illusions.htm
This is also a good discussion about bistable stimuli: http://pensees.pascallisch.net/?p=1885
8
Thanks for this!
1
Once again, an article on this subject quotes "expert opinion" that is just wrong. When the U Rochester prof says people are not able to change their perception. After more than 24 hours as a white and gold fundamentalist, imagine my shock when an hour ago I sudden became a blue and blackist! There are reports that some people can change it - at will.
The real story here is there is a LOT going on, and you can't just pin it down to "cones in the eyes vary amongst people" or "over-exposure". It is those factors, but also the nature of the camera's image processing code, probably the nature of jpg compression, bad ambient lighting etc. etc. And probably, yes, a degree of psychological influence. Surely the fact I KNOW the dress is blue and black encourages me to see it that way.
The thing is anyone can easily see what the real color is, just cut out the colors of the dress and greatly magnify them. Though I've been drawn into blue and black relativism, I truly think white and gold is closer to the real truth of the image (not of the dress). When you pick the colors out, it's a very light baby blue and an absolutely hideous brown. It's like my eye no longer wants to see that hideous brown, and instead of turning it up to gold, is turning it down to black. In the process of doing that, the light blue gets caught in the nervous system's algorithm, and becomes darker than it really is. (but by no means as dark as the dress appears in a photographically competent picture)
The real story here is there is a LOT going on, and you can't just pin it down to "cones in the eyes vary amongst people" or "over-exposure". It is those factors, but also the nature of the camera's image processing code, probably the nature of jpg compression, bad ambient lighting etc. etc. And probably, yes, a degree of psychological influence. Surely the fact I KNOW the dress is blue and black encourages me to see it that way.
The thing is anyone can easily see what the real color is, just cut out the colors of the dress and greatly magnify them. Though I've been drawn into blue and black relativism, I truly think white and gold is closer to the real truth of the image (not of the dress). When you pick the colors out, it's a very light baby blue and an absolutely hideous brown. It's like my eye no longer wants to see that hideous brown, and instead of turning it up to gold, is turning it down to black. In the process of doing that, the light blue gets caught in the nervous system's algorithm, and becomes darker than it really is. (but by no means as dark as the dress appears in a photographically competent picture)
1
The image first seen by me on early morning TV was clearly white and gold. The image in the top photo of this article appears to me to be a white-ish, pale blue and faded (and unattractive!) gold-taupe.
Most of us are viewing these images on either television or the internet--a very different way to view something than in person (although then too colors can, of course, shift according to light).
What I have not heard mentioned yet in these discussion are two points. The first being how staring at the bright, back-lit computer monitors we stare at all day effect our vision, particularly over time, as the hours/minutes of staring go by...
The other is the issue of complementary colors, something painters work with a good deal. Blue and yellow are complimentary colors. If one stares long enough at a blue field, the eye (brain) will produce a wash of yellow when one stops looking at the blue. The opposite effect occurs as well. I've wondered if staring at the ochre/yellow tones in the gold trim might produce the sense of blue where previously there was white...
As for the gold trim appearing black to some eyes, well, that I don't get at all!
Most of us are viewing these images on either television or the internet--a very different way to view something than in person (although then too colors can, of course, shift according to light).
What I have not heard mentioned yet in these discussion are two points. The first being how staring at the bright, back-lit computer monitors we stare at all day effect our vision, particularly over time, as the hours/minutes of staring go by...
The other is the issue of complementary colors, something painters work with a good deal. Blue and yellow are complimentary colors. If one stares long enough at a blue field, the eye (brain) will produce a wash of yellow when one stops looking at the blue. The opposite effect occurs as well. I've wondered if staring at the ochre/yellow tones in the gold trim might produce the sense of blue where previously there was white...
As for the gold trim appearing black to some eyes, well, that I don't get at all!
4
"People who see the dress one way do not eventually begin to see it the other way, as is common with many optical illusions."
This is utterly wrong. The dress constantly changes colors for me, from white and gold to blue and black, as it does for many others. This scientist obviously needs to do a little more research..
This is utterly wrong. The dress constantly changes colors for me, from white and gold to blue and black, as it does for many others. This scientist obviously needs to do a little more research..
7
Are you using a cheap TN technology panel? Those things are very poor for judging images as the angle you view at can change light gray to pitch black depending upon how you look and they can suffer bad color shifts as the viewing angle changes too.
If someone has some partial bit of color-blindness that could exaggerate it even more as the tint goes from one end to other at some point it might hit a tipping point where suddenly there is enough red-green showing up for them to start picking it up.
On MVA/PVA screens, the wrong angle can greatly increase/decrease the appearance of blue tones if the viewing angle changes a lot.
If you are seeing it change from the 100% exact same spot and even on an IPS monitor like that, then that is really weird. Maybe it falls at some tipping point where you are just on the borderline of seeing it one way or another, but that almost certainly would mean that the balance of your cones is not typical (or perhaps you are viewing it on a really tiny screen from far away and that is enough to bring the shadow/daylight tricks into play even for an image like this on a white page).
If someone has some partial bit of color-blindness that could exaggerate it even more as the tint goes from one end to other at some point it might hit a tipping point where suddenly there is enough red-green showing up for them to start picking it up.
On MVA/PVA screens, the wrong angle can greatly increase/decrease the appearance of blue tones if the viewing angle changes a lot.
If you are seeing it change from the 100% exact same spot and even on an IPS monitor like that, then that is really weird. Maybe it falls at some tipping point where you are just on the borderline of seeing it one way or another, but that almost certainly would mean that the balance of your cones is not typical (or perhaps you are viewing it on a really tiny screen from far away and that is enough to bring the shadow/daylight tricks into play even for an image like this on a white page).
1
I first saw blue and black. Then later I saw white and gold. Then after a while I saw blue and black again. I shared it on a friend's page and now it looks white and gold again. It does not change according to tilt of a screen for me at all.
2
I have figured out that when I look of a picture of it where it is clearly blue and black and everyone sees it and then look at this photo, it looks blue and black. If I just look at this photo without looking at the original photo, it looks white and gold.
1
The lighting at my end of the cable has not changed. The picture posted at the top of this article is not the same as the picture you ran this morning. You changed it or edited it. This morning it was white and gold, while now it is blue and black. You can't fool me.
8
I thought the same thing. I had the image on my computer from this morning. When I saved it, it was white and gold. Now it's black and blue!
4
Well, of course it's a hoax.
LOL! Yes, it's all a mischievous ruse on us!
1
Remember that women have more cones than men, influencing nuances seen by women. (I remember a NYT article on super-cone women.) Also, color monitors have a palette. And then there maybe that thing they tell you about in Psych classes when you stare at a colored object, turn away, and there is an after glow of a different color.
1
CONTINUED.....PART2:
2.a. continued.... this part is a little sketch but perhaps the black part might have had some counter threading or perhaps been able to pick up reflected tones or had a bit of a hummingbird effect where the angle alters what you see, or maybe not, but anyway as the deep shadows were raised the camera was probably not very sensitive to near pitch colors and the true color was perhaps lost in the noise or their was some sort of metameric failure and a slightly not quite 0,0,0 black that was maybe recorded as say 8,7,2 or something instead of say 6,6,6 when raised a ton turned into that dingy gold brown color?
2.b. (assuming it was the off-white and black version of the dress): same as above for the black only for the blueish-white part now we have the simple fact that the color balance was set for daylight, but the dress was in shadow and since digital camera exaggerate greatly differences between direct sunlight and shadow color balance the off-white part picked up a blueish cast.
3. OK now as for why a few people say they see it one way some times and another way other times.... one possibility is they are using cheap TN panel screens and the color tone and brightness are HIGHLY dependent upon exact viewing angle with those screens. continued.....
2.a. continued.... this part is a little sketch but perhaps the black part might have had some counter threading or perhaps been able to pick up reflected tones or had a bit of a hummingbird effect where the angle alters what you see, or maybe not, but anyway as the deep shadows were raised the camera was probably not very sensitive to near pitch colors and the true color was perhaps lost in the noise or their was some sort of metameric failure and a slightly not quite 0,0,0 black that was maybe recorded as say 8,7,2 or something instead of say 6,6,6 when raised a ton turned into that dingy gold brown color?
2.b. (assuming it was the off-white and black version of the dress): same as above for the black only for the blueish-white part now we have the simple fact that the color balance was set for daylight, but the dress was in shadow and since digital camera exaggerate greatly differences between direct sunlight and shadow color balance the off-white part picked up a blueish cast.
3. OK now as for why a few people say they see it one way some times and another way other times.... one possibility is they are using cheap TN panel screens and the color tone and brightness are HIGHLY dependent upon exact viewing angle with those screens. continued.....
#3?
No. I have one of the best EIZO monitors ever made and calibrate it every week to sRGB. I saw it as white and gold yesterday and this morning. I saved the image this morning. Now I see it as blue. There is a strong element of illusory nervous system processing going on. Some people are able to change it at will, if they are to be believed. I'm struggling to get it back to white. I've managed to at least lighten the blue. I know my eye is tricking me because if I isolate the blue, I realize it is actually a light blue.
It seems to me on a bright white background like NYTimes, it is more likely to appear white.
No. I have one of the best EIZO monitors ever made and calibrate it every week to sRGB. I saw it as white and gold yesterday and this morning. I saved the image this morning. Now I see it as blue. There is a strong element of illusory nervous system processing going on. Some people are able to change it at will, if they are to be believed. I'm struggling to get it back to white. I've managed to at least lighten the blue. I know my eye is tricking me because if I isolate the blue, I realize it is actually a light blue.
It seems to me on a bright white background like NYTimes, it is more likely to appear white.
5
PART 1:
The explanation in the GRAPHIC pop-up article is 100% totally wrong. People do not get tricked in this scenario to judging shadow vs direct sunlight in this scenario to that degree in this way.
It's simply this:
1. The dress AS THE PHOTO SHOWS IT simply is a slightly blueish white and a dull, dim, dingy gold. It's proven by measuring the color with a spectrophotometer, colorimeter or using the color drop sampler tool in Photoshop. This also happens to be how I see it every single time (I've gotten perfect scores on color tests were you have to tell apart very subtle shades).
2. The reason why the actual dress which is apparently the blue and black copy (although there is some legitimate debate apparently that it might be the off-white and black version) looks as it does in the photo, dingy gold and varying degrees of a bit blueish white is:
a. (assuming it is the strong blue and black one): the camera was probably exposed more for the bright outdoor conditions, that made the dress come out entirely near black so to make it show up the deep shadows were given a big raise as well as the overall brightness. Especially with some color profiles in cameras and processing program that change colors depending upon brightness (so-called "twisted-profiles") but even with regular profiles, as you shadow pull it tends to reduce contrast and heavily de-saturate so the strong rich blue becomes a washed out light blueish white. CONTINUED....
The explanation in the GRAPHIC pop-up article is 100% totally wrong. People do not get tricked in this scenario to judging shadow vs direct sunlight in this scenario to that degree in this way.
It's simply this:
1. The dress AS THE PHOTO SHOWS IT simply is a slightly blueish white and a dull, dim, dingy gold. It's proven by measuring the color with a spectrophotometer, colorimeter or using the color drop sampler tool in Photoshop. This also happens to be how I see it every single time (I've gotten perfect scores on color tests were you have to tell apart very subtle shades).
2. The reason why the actual dress which is apparently the blue and black copy (although there is some legitimate debate apparently that it might be the off-white and black version) looks as it does in the photo, dingy gold and varying degrees of a bit blueish white is:
a. (assuming it is the strong blue and black one): the camera was probably exposed more for the bright outdoor conditions, that made the dress come out entirely near black so to make it show up the deep shadows were given a big raise as well as the overall brightness. Especially with some color profiles in cameras and processing program that change colors depending upon brightness (so-called "twisted-profiles") but even with regular profiles, as you shadow pull it tends to reduce contrast and heavily de-saturate so the strong rich blue becomes a washed out light blueish white. CONTINUED....
2
I see blue (sky blue) and gold. After having seen the dress (down at the bottom), I recognize that the photo is washed out.
Didn't know what could make the black part of the dress appear to be gold ... except that the lighting appears to have a yellowish tint to it. You get a little surface reflection of yellow, plus some black, and viola, gold! The yellow lighting also would explain the wash out of the blue to look more white.
So, I did a quick image manipulation decreasing the yellow on the yellow-blue axis. I also increased the contrast and decreased the brightness. Took about 30 seconds. Link is here: http://i278.photobucket.com/albums/kk114/Remo_Aviron/The%20dress_zpskqjh...
QED
Didn't know what could make the black part of the dress appear to be gold ... except that the lighting appears to have a yellowish tint to it. You get a little surface reflection of yellow, plus some black, and viola, gold! The yellow lighting also would explain the wash out of the blue to look more white.
So, I did a quick image manipulation decreasing the yellow on the yellow-blue axis. I also increased the contrast and decreased the brightness. Took about 30 seconds. Link is here: http://i278.photobucket.com/albums/kk114/Remo_Aviron/The%20dress_zpskqjh...
QED
1
In the spirit of Dr. Seuss - is it a blue dress with black stripes, or a black dress with blue stripes?
2
Regardless of whether that dress is blue, black, white, gold, pink, grey or orange, those horizontal stripes are going to make my hips look fat.
4
I have seen the dress as blue and black, and white and gold on separate multiple occasions.
Ok, update. After an email popped up over the white and gold dress, and I closed the email, the dress was then blue and black, clear as day, blue and black, after seeing it as clear as day white and gold. I think our photographer has inadvertently created a science lesson on how the rods and cones in our eyes work.
2
This is the first picture I have seen where any blue was visible to me. I think the real question has nothing to do with the yarn, or the exposure, or even the real color of the dress. The question is why three people looking at the identical image see three completely different things. Completely. Right in front of our eyes. I think it speaks to how much we as human beings are capable of misunderstanding each other.
6
"three people looking at the identical image"
The problem is that we don't know what software and what displays people are using. Those are uncontrolled variables in this social media "experiment".
The problem is that we don't know what software and what displays people are using. Those are uncontrolled variables in this social media "experiment".
2
I meant to say the people looking at the same image st the same time which is how it went here. One saw black and royal blue, one saw white and gold, and one saw powder blue and gold. Looking at the same image at the same time in the same room on the same screen.
11
"... the people looking at the same image st the same time ..."
Thanks for your clarification. That's *much* better than the i-see, you-see reporting on social media.
You would still need to control for viewing angle, because LCDs display different colors depending on viewing angle.
"One saw black and royal blue, one saw white and gold, and one saw powder blue and gold."
In a controlled experiment, the subjects would be shown test colors in addition to the dress image, so that their color vocabulary could be defined.
Thanks for your clarification. That's *much* better than the i-see, you-see reporting on social media.
You would still need to control for viewing angle, because LCDs display different colors depending on viewing angle.
"One saw black and royal blue, one saw white and gold, and one saw powder blue and gold."
In a controlled experiment, the subjects would be shown test colors in addition to the dress image, so that their color vocabulary could be defined.
1
The first picture in the article shows a dress with white and gold colors. The picture lower down in the article has a red-headed lady attaching a label to a dress in blue and black.
6
If you tilt the computer screen backwards, the dress will appear black and blue. If you tilt it forwards, it will appear white and gold.
2
Just did this, and while I still "see" the dress as white & gold, when I shifted the screen & cut out ambient light, I then saw how others could see it as black & blue. Amazing to me that it's really the latter. But it is! Shows how much perception plays into what we "know!"
Katie this is the first time I was able to manipulate the image and see anything other than white and gold. Following your trick it turned blue and black. Thank you for resolving this very very much ado about nothing. I've been enjoying it, though.
1
Look, photograph of the dress, AS SHOWN, is gold and (bluish) white.
What the actual dress colors were, no one could know. Most people answered as if what they saw was the actual dress, not a faulty rendition of it. A high school level trick question?
Those who saw some other colors, obviously have a visual perception problem.
For proof, compare the photo, further down the article, allegedly accurately rendered, with the one originally published.
Clearly, they are not rendered the same and anyone with normal vision would agree on the coloration AS SHOWN.
What the actual dress colors were, no one could know. Most people answered as if what they saw was the actual dress, not a faulty rendition of it. A high school level trick question?
Those who saw some other colors, obviously have a visual perception problem.
For proof, compare the photo, further down the article, allegedly accurately rendered, with the one originally published.
Clearly, they are not rendered the same and anyone with normal vision would agree on the coloration AS SHOWN.
7
Exactly. It's proven that in the photo it is a bluesh white and dingy gold (as I see it too and scored perfectly on a very subtle color shade discrimination test) by Photoshop and measuring with various devices such as spectrophotometers.
The reason some see the dull gold as black I'd 99% bet is simply that some people have varying forms of R/G colorblindness so they don't pick up the R/G part much and the blue signal in it is very low so they basically see it as a dark gray. That probably makes the blue seem a bit richer too to them.
The reason a few people see it varying is probably that some have partial color blindness and some screens are probably color-balanced wrong just enough one way or another to have it flip on them although more likely it's just looking at cheap TN panels where colors can radically shift depending upon viewing angle and even moreso, darker tones can dip super dark and wash out in saturation at the wrong viewing angle. The reason a few see the blueish white as 100% pure white and are not just guessing that out of a shadow it is white even though they see a touch of blue in the white is that they either have few blue cones, have blue cones that miss the main primary blue spike on their display or they simply have their screens calibrated to an unusually warm white balance so the blueish white turns pure white.
The reason some see the dull gold as black I'd 99% bet is simply that some people have varying forms of R/G colorblindness so they don't pick up the R/G part much and the blue signal in it is very low so they basically see it as a dark gray. That probably makes the blue seem a bit richer too to them.
The reason a few people see it varying is probably that some have partial color blindness and some screens are probably color-balanced wrong just enough one way or another to have it flip on them although more likely it's just looking at cheap TN panels where colors can radically shift depending upon viewing angle and even moreso, darker tones can dip super dark and wash out in saturation at the wrong viewing angle. The reason a few see the blueish white as 100% pure white and are not just guessing that out of a shadow it is white even though they see a touch of blue in the white is that they either have few blue cones, have blue cones that miss the main primary blue spike on their display or they simply have their screens calibrated to an unusually warm white balance so the blueish white turns pure white.
3
Joe and XYZ, finally two people who make sense!!! Thank you!!!
1
It all depends on what your definition of "is" is.
3
I cannot see it as anything other than blue and black, even after changing the brightness of the image. just blue and black.
1
The dress-color controversy including indignation about its relative importance or newsworthiness over other events shows me that, after one's basic needs are fulfilled including being and feeling safe, everything else is some form of entertainment.
1
"... some form of entertainment."
Photo interpretation may be a matter of life and death when selecting bombing targets in a war.
Photo interpretation may be a matter of life and death when selecting bombing targets in a war.
1
I saw a picture of the dress this morning and saw blue and black. Now I see white and gold. I don't know what is going on.
1
The problem is that a poor quality camera was used, or a better camera was used poorly. The white balance setting is wrong, and so is the exposure. It's less about our eyes and more about the camera.
21
Completely wrong. How the photo was shot or how good or bad the camera is is irrelevant. Yes, this photo is very overexposed. Technically it is not a good photo. However the final image is a JPEG rendered on an RGB screen.
The issue is on how our eyes perceive this final image. It has to do with our vision and our perception, not the photo itself.
The issue is on how our eyes perceive this final image. It has to do with our vision and our perception, not the photo itself.
5
My husband looked at the photo on my laptop, while I was looking at it. He saw blue and black. I saw white and gold. We were looking at the same photo at the same time.
2
And, this is why eyewitness court testimony is always suspect.
18
Josef Albers is smiling somewhere right now
2
My guess is that this is an issue with rods and cones in the eye - and individual variation of these. Plus perhaps a 'fatigue' related phenomenon when looking at certain colors. When looking at the exact same picture, I definitely see blue and black - and my husband is as adamant that it is gold and white. Perhaps an ophthalmologist could chime in? Regardless, it's all good fun....
2
The people who are dismissing the dress as a silly internet meme are missing the point. For many people, the dress is an introduction into the idea that reality is utterly subjective. Everyone has wildly different interpretations of the dress and nobody is wrong either. Think of the implications this has on eyewitness testimony. Think of the implications this has on the rest of reality. That quantum physics article in the New York Times a few days ago about reality resembling Rashomon--several interpretations, all valid--is quite pertinent now.
Most fascinating to me, however, is the public's reaction to this event. Instead of marveling at the idea that the human brain allows so much room for interpretation, we instead have a disturbingly large group of people who militantly insist that their interpretation of the dress is right and anyone who sees different is either stupid, lying, or an otherwise lesser human being. Some people are so uncomfortable when their perception of reality is challenged that they protect themselves by lashing out and belittling others. Humanity in a nutshell.
The entire dress episode is a valuable insight into human nature and reality, and I'm glad The New York Times is giving it the attention it deserves.
Most fascinating to me, however, is the public's reaction to this event. Instead of marveling at the idea that the human brain allows so much room for interpretation, we instead have a disturbingly large group of people who militantly insist that their interpretation of the dress is right and anyone who sees different is either stupid, lying, or an otherwise lesser human being. Some people are so uncomfortable when their perception of reality is challenged that they protect themselves by lashing out and belittling others. Humanity in a nutshell.
The entire dress episode is a valuable insight into human nature and reality, and I'm glad The New York Times is giving it the attention it deserves.
155
"... the idea that reality is utterly subjective."
Social media discussions are not controlled scientific experiments. If you show people with normal color vision the dress under standard viewing conditions, they will generally agree on the colors.
Social media discussions are not controlled scientific experiments. If you show people with normal color vision the dress under standard viewing conditions, they will generally agree on the colors.
And then you have this contingent of people who absolutely insist that it's a problem with monitors and software because it's easier to live with that simple technological explanation than it is to live with the fact that your brain is not as reliable as you'd like to believe.
Watch any selection attention experiment on Youtube and read the mountain of scientific research explaining them. You'll soon understand how unreliable the brain can be at observing and interpreting reality.
Watch any selection attention experiment on Youtube and read the mountain of scientific research explaining them. You'll soon understand how unreliable the brain can be at observing and interpreting reality.
4
Hold on there Sadie Slays- you say "nobody is wrong" when in fact they are provably wrong if they insist the dress is white and gold. They are only "right" if they qualify their statement that the dress "appears" to be white and gold. The fact is it is a blue and black dress. The only difference is in individual perception of the artifact in question. And nothing can change the fact that the true color rendition of the dress is blue and black. Furthermore you are calling into question the reliability of eyewitness testimony. Based on color perception? No. This is a stretch. The only issue this dress debate raises is that of individual variability of color perception. Please stick to that specific issue.
1
whoa - if we're talking about the photo in this article, I see blue and brown.
3
They say beauty is in the eye of the beholder; could it now be that truth is in the eye of the beholder?
3
I cannot in any way I look at it, see this dress was anything but white and gold. All of the pictures attempting to explain how this is not necessarily white and gold all look like white and gold to me also.
The last picture of the blue and black dress doesn't look like anything else in the article.
And none of the explanation makes sense at all.
How was this published?
The last picture of the blue and black dress doesn't look like anything else in the article.
And none of the explanation makes sense at all.
How was this published?
2
I think the smug comments about how we should all be feeding the homeless instead of viewing this article and how this isn't news don't understand the issue. This isn't about the dress, it's about the science of how our eyes work and how we perceive color, which is actually a fascinating story. The person sitting next to me said that he sees the white and gold dress in the picture as royal blue and black. That is as interesting a science experiment as any I can remember from school.
19
"The person sitting next to me ..."
Did you control for viewing angle? LCD displays may show very different colors depending on viewing angle.
Did you control for viewing angle? LCD displays may show very different colors depending on viewing angle.
1
This is not correct. I can see the dress as both white and gold and as blue and black (I first saw it as white and gold, then stared at the same picture until it turned blue and black, and it occasionally switches). I'm not sure why it changes for me and not some other people, but I can assure you that the statement "People who see the dress one way do not eventually begin to see it the other way, as is common with many optical illusions" is, in fact, quite false.
4
I've seen it both ways, too. White and gold this morning; light blue and brown this afternoon. Go figure.
And so it ends up that it is all a matter of relative perception. The surrounding context influences our choice of the 2 valid interpretations. The preconceived notions of what the wedding dress should look like also influences us. And yet while our brain is seeing it one way we can not imagine how anyone could see it differently.
Something to ponder when we think about our political views and how convinced we are that the way we see it is the ONLY way it really is.
Something to ponder when we think about our political views and how convinced we are that the way we see it is the ONLY way it really is.
4
As a vision scientist what I think is happening is a number of interacting factors, but mostly it is about contextual influence on color perception. Specifically where the light source is in the image and what illumination the object falls under. If your visual system decided the dress is in shadow you will see it as white and gold, if you decided it is in direct light you will see it as black and blue. (Of course you're not explicitly deciding this, and it is hard to do so, it is automatic.)
The color balance of the photo is clearly off. But it could be re-balanced in different ways, and how to properly rebalance depends on if the dress is in shadow or not. The weirdly over-exposed background provides a flexible context that some see as shadow (and thus under-exposure), and some see as direct light (and thus over-exposure). The real answer is blue and black, and thus over-exposure. The camera incorrectly exposed, and also incorrectly set the white balance because there was so much blue in the image. The white balance is shifted towards red, further confusing the issue.
All this is very subtle and this photo just happens to fall in a very ambiguous set of lighting and color circumstances that your visual system really has trouble solving. You can then flip back and forth, but it's neither easy or fast. Clearly a very confusing image to the visual system.
This set of color illusions illustrates these issues well:
http://brainden.com/color-illusions.htm
The color balance of the photo is clearly off. But it could be re-balanced in different ways, and how to properly rebalance depends on if the dress is in shadow or not. The weirdly over-exposed background provides a flexible context that some see as shadow (and thus under-exposure), and some see as direct light (and thus over-exposure). The real answer is blue and black, and thus over-exposure. The camera incorrectly exposed, and also incorrectly set the white balance because there was so much blue in the image. The white balance is shifted towards red, further confusing the issue.
All this is very subtle and this photo just happens to fall in a very ambiguous set of lighting and color circumstances that your visual system really has trouble solving. You can then flip back and forth, but it's neither easy or fast. Clearly a very confusing image to the visual system.
This set of color illusions illustrates these issues well:
http://brainden.com/color-illusions.htm
13
"The camera incorrectly exposed, and also incorrectly set the white balance because there was so much blue in the image."
Can camera software avoid these problems?
Can camera software avoid these problems?
Yes, they can avoid them and usually do. However remember the camera software only has so much processing power and only knows so much about what you're taking a picture of. It's trying to make the best guesses it can. More often than not nowadays the software is pretty good because it has a lot of common default scenes it can latch onto, can find things like faces and know they should be properly exposed (and not blue), etc. Here though the situation was difficult in that the background was very bright, and most of the photo was taken up by an object with a color that is somewhat unusual: royal blue. Given this somewhat limited information the software probably guessed that the blue should be brighter than royal (since photos that are mostly blue are probably most commonly pictures of sky and water), so overexposed. In order to properly white balance, the software needs an image with a pretty wide tonal and color range which is also lacking in this photo, thus probably why the white balance was off as well.
2
Its obviously white and gold. Not sure why there is controversy.
1
The first few times I saw this picture, I looked at the upper left corner and assumed that bright light was shining in the photographer's face, which would cast the dress in a shadow.
Then I looked at what appears to be a normally lighted black and white pattern (the arm of a chair, perhaps?) and the blue-and-black coloration became visible.
I think what confuses people is that over-lit black fabric usually becomes brown, or blue, or grey. It's odd that a black material reflects yellow.
Then I looked at what appears to be a normally lighted black and white pattern (the arm of a chair, perhaps?) and the blue-and-black coloration became visible.
I think what confuses people is that over-lit black fabric usually becomes brown, or blue, or grey. It's odd that a black material reflects yellow.
A simple color-picker program will pick out white and gold colors, without suffering any ambiguity.
1
The dress in the first photo in this article is either white and gold/tan or a very light blue and gold/tan. There could be other photos floating around the Internet that, for one technical reason or another, are showing a much darker blue, and the gold/tan looks much darker as well, or there are photos from a much earlier stage of the dress's life (or of a different dress) floating around. If there's really that much disparity in how people perceive colors, then no crime involving a car would ever be solved, no one would be able to sell paint based on its color, because it could look completely different to the buyer,etc.
I have seen it as periwinkle blue and dark brown since the first time I saw it yesterday. There's no other photo.
2
You know the color by the name people give it, not by how it actually looks. Your red is your red, and my red is my red -- and we really don't know if they're the same or different.
1
Isn't this more of a Daily Mail kind of story?
4
The dress was made with fabrics that used two different colors of yarns. It's an old weaving trick. For instance, if the warp thread was white and the weft was blue then depending on how the light bounces off the fabric will determine the color you see.
25
Thanks for pointing that out, but presumably the photo itself is not changing.
2
But in this shot we all see the light of the fabric bouncing off the same way. So it's irrelevant. It doesn't explain what color we see in the photograph.
1
Not. First, this dress is not made of iridescent taffeta. Second, how the fabric of this dress is made is completely irrelevant. We are not looking at the dress. We are looking at the image of the dress.
I have seen this same image change from blue and black to white and gold twice now. Amazing.
I have seen this same image change from blue and black to white and gold twice now. Amazing.
1
I'm in a 40-day Facebook Detox which has made me think more about important things rather than this. I found out about this whole debate today when my boyfriend (who doesn't like things that go viral) made a joke if his jacket was black and blue or white and gold.... I didn't have any clue what he was talking about until reading this.
Honestly, who cares? It's obviously a camera/light trick.... but really people, move on!
Honestly, who cares? It's obviously a camera/light trick.... but really people, move on!
1
Two students asked me to settle this dispute in class last night. The dress I saw on their phones was clearly white and gold. I don't know what the rest of you people are looking at!
1
For what it's worth, I see periwinkle and gold. Can't see black or bright blue, no matter how I stare at it.
4
Thank you for validating my eyesight! My brother and I agree with you, but were worried we didn't fit into the "white/gold" or "blue/black" camps.
The dress is blue and gold.
2
Okay. I may have something to explain my experience. I first saw it as white and gold . But, after looking at the real dress - black and blue-I then looked up at the washed out photo again and the dress was a washed out blue and black. For me it was a perception shift- The NYT front page title calls it a "Gold and White Dress" so my brain was prepared to see a gold and white dress- It my be like those black and white drawings of the woman and the goblet- which do you see? the goblet or the woman's face? The dress photo is so washed out that it lends to both perceptions.
2
I can see it either blue/black or gold/white depending on the way I think the dress is made. If I think it is made of polished fabric and the image is not brighter then the real dress I see it gold/white, instead thinking that the dress is made of opaque fabric and thinking that the image is brighter and poor quality I see it blue/black.
It's all in your mind.
It's all in your mind.
Find out why this is the case by, well, using Instagram.
If you move your head around, it will be gold/white at one angle and blue/black at another.
1
What interests me is that it changes color as I look at it. I'm sure there's an explanation, but would like to read it.
2
So I see an ivory white and gold dress when I look straight at the picture (sitting at my computer screen normally). Keeping everything else constant, if I I tilt my head all the way down, so I have to look UP at the picture, it's blue and black. Same if I tilt my head all the way back and look DOWN at the picture. If I walk back ten feet and look at the dress, it's blue and black. Curious if this inversion exists for people who see a blue and black dress when looking straight at the picture.
4
I'm sure she was a beautiful bride in her orange dress. We should find some other use for our "smart" phones.
2
I'm disappointed in the NYTimes. I was hoping to see the science behind the visual phenomenon. This is just a pop culture meme.
4
Here's your explanation. (From NY Times)
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/02/28/science/white-or-blue-dres...
For what it's worth, I see gold and bluish-white. :)
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/02/28/science/white-or-blue-dres...
For what it's worth, I see gold and bluish-white. :)
2
The people who don't understand the kerfluffle about the dress are the ones who have only experienced seeing this photo in a single way.
When I looked at the image earlier today, the dress was clearly black and blue. I couldn't see it any other way and I didn't understand what the fuss was about. But when I came back to the same page an hour later, the same photo suddenly showed a dress that was gold and white. And, try as I might, I can't "trick" my eyes into seeing the blue and black dress that I saw earlier. Either the New York Times is messing with us by randomly swapping the photo or there really is an interesting optical illusion taking place.
When I looked at the image earlier today, the dress was clearly black and blue. I couldn't see it any other way and I didn't understand what the fuss was about. But when I came back to the same page an hour later, the same photo suddenly showed a dress that was gold and white. And, try as I might, I can't "trick" my eyes into seeing the blue and black dress that I saw earlier. Either the New York Times is messing with us by randomly swapping the photo or there really is an interesting optical illusion taking place.
15
Exact same
As a photographer, I see it as being very overexposed. Blue and Black gets my vote!
7
I don't see it as overexposed. I see it as being in shadow - look at the bright lens flare over the shoulder of the dress... it is clearly coming from BEHIND the dress - putting the front of it (what we are looking at) in shadow. Because of this, I see the gold color and a light bluish-white color. Try to imagine it in shadow like I am and see if you see gold and bluish-white. :)
The brilliant comic xkcd explains why our eyes play this kind of trick. The photographers commenting appear to have figured it out, too.
I saw both versions in this article. When I first clicked on the page the dress was obviously gold and white- not a washed out gold and white- and I could not understand how anyone could see it as black and blue. Then I clicked on the link to "Alex from Target" to see what that was about. I came back to the original article and the dress was now washed out black and blue! I clicked back to the NYT front page then back into the article to see if it would change back to white and gold but was still black and blue. Whats up?
1
Has national discourse really come down to runaway llamas and the color of a digital dress? How many Tweets can dance on a pinhead?
4
I think this "controversy" reveals something very interesting about the way the internet encourages people to engage in conflict. The anonymity the internet provides, along with the ease with which anyone can add their opinion, encourages people who might otherwise not engage to suddenly be drawn into a vociferous debate. I think that's more fascinating than the color of a dress.
5
Yes, it's like, "How dare you not think the way I do?" It's almost a personal affront if people deny your reality on the Internet. But I'm sure if you were just talking about this amongst friends in person, people might disagree, but would try to see it the other way, or at least agree it is no big deal and move on.
OK, folks. Try this if you have a laptop.
Put the screen up at 90 degrees to the keyboard. The dress looks light blue and brown (or gold).
Now, lean back and press your screen back away from you as far as you can
Voila, blue and black. (And the background gets much more saturated, too.)
When I took Art in high school, our teacher would not let us buy black paint. Instead we had to make it from opposing colors, generally vermillion blue and orange. So black pretty much contains ALL the colors, and when unsaturated, a color that looks darned black can turn brown.
Put the screen up at 90 degrees to the keyboard. The dress looks light blue and brown (or gold).
Now, lean back and press your screen back away from you as far as you can
Voila, blue and black. (And the background gets much more saturated, too.)
When I took Art in high school, our teacher would not let us buy black paint. Instead we had to make it from opposing colors, generally vermillion blue and orange. So black pretty much contains ALL the colors, and when unsaturated, a color that looks darned black can turn brown.
2
This article had the gold and white image earlier today, and now it's blue and black. Please tell me the NYtimes switched the image!
1
Resist I must. Color me blue and bored by this nonsense posing as science. Is real life so uninteresting that we need to question our eyesight?
1
The color of the 'real' dress is irrelevant since we are looking at two different representations of the original. Different image sensors will 'see' colors differently, and they will also be affected by the surrounding light.
Jack M is right on about color constancy and how we 'see' color. But that probably isn't entirely what is going on here as we don't have 'memory' about dress color--it has more effect with things like flesh tones, green grass and blue sky.
From a technical standpoint: A quick trip to Photoshop gives the following info and what you should be seeing:
The top image should appear 'gold' or ochre and white to you. The bottom image should appear blue and black to you.
The top image 'gold' areas have an RGB value of around 155R 139G 126B which falls into the area that represents an ochre/gold color. The 'white' areas of the dress show 131R 150G 192B which fall into the area that would represent 'blue white' in open shadow outside under a blue sky.
The bottom image shows RGB values in the 'black' area of 33R 31G 52B which you should be seeing as a bluish black. The 'blue' areas are 21R 49G 123B which is clearly blue to the normal eye.
Jack M is right on about color constancy and how we 'see' color. But that probably isn't entirely what is going on here as we don't have 'memory' about dress color--it has more effect with things like flesh tones, green grass and blue sky.
From a technical standpoint: A quick trip to Photoshop gives the following info and what you should be seeing:
The top image should appear 'gold' or ochre and white to you. The bottom image should appear blue and black to you.
The top image 'gold' areas have an RGB value of around 155R 139G 126B which falls into the area that represents an ochre/gold color. The 'white' areas of the dress show 131R 150G 192B which fall into the area that would represent 'blue white' in open shadow outside under a blue sky.
The bottom image shows RGB values in the 'black' area of 33R 31G 52B which you should be seeing as a bluish black. The 'blue' areas are 21R 49G 123B which is clearly blue to the normal eye.
37
The color memory issue here is that we automatically associate black with the darkest value of whatever scene we are looking at because in most lighting conditions that is true.
In this case the lines on the dress are allegedly black but there is a darker value on the cloth directly behind it. That challenges our brains ability to perceive it as black. This is compounded by the fact that both blacks are overexposed relative to the black on the text of the article.
In fact there is no obvious explanation for why the dress's black would be overexposed and not the background cloths black (as much) unless the dresses "black" is actually a lighter dark perhaps blue or some other shade or some technical camera related issue.
The illusion here and the reason people perceive is only slightly related to different monitors because the relative color and value remains the same no matter what the monitor setting. It also doesn't have to do with people seeing color differently. It has to do with color constancy and the fact that there is an ambiguous color relationship in the picture combined with the fact that our visual memory has a hard time seeing black as a lower value than other parts of the picture. It depends where you focused on when you looked first at it.
See James Gurney's blog for one of the most thorough explorations of this subject.
Further reading:
Creative illustration by Andrew Loomis
Color and Light by James Gurney
Alla Prima II by Richard Schmid
In this case the lines on the dress are allegedly black but there is a darker value on the cloth directly behind it. That challenges our brains ability to perceive it as black. This is compounded by the fact that both blacks are overexposed relative to the black on the text of the article.
In fact there is no obvious explanation for why the dress's black would be overexposed and not the background cloths black (as much) unless the dresses "black" is actually a lighter dark perhaps blue or some other shade or some technical camera related issue.
The illusion here and the reason people perceive is only slightly related to different monitors because the relative color and value remains the same no matter what the monitor setting. It also doesn't have to do with people seeing color differently. It has to do with color constancy and the fact that there is an ambiguous color relationship in the picture combined with the fact that our visual memory has a hard time seeing black as a lower value than other parts of the picture. It depends where you focused on when you looked first at it.
See James Gurney's blog for one of the most thorough explorations of this subject.
Further reading:
Creative illustration by Andrew Loomis
Color and Light by James Gurney
Alla Prima II by Richard Schmid
3
Its called bad color correction.
The image in the body of the article clearly shows the dress to be blue and black. The poor-quality, improperly color-corrected, over-edited, over-exposed, incorrectly lighted, incompetently composed, cell-phone shot from Caitlin McNeill shown at the top of the article clearly shows the dress as bluish-white and gold.
Al this proves is that Caitlin McNeill is not a good photographer.
The image in the body of the article clearly shows the dress to be blue and black. The poor-quality, improperly color-corrected, over-edited, over-exposed, incorrectly lighted, incompetently composed, cell-phone shot from Caitlin McNeill shown at the top of the article clearly shows the dress as bluish-white and gold.
Al this proves is that Caitlin McNeill is not a good photographer.
1
I see no white in it at all; it's obviously blue. On the other hand, the black looks gold to me.
1
At least on my laptop monitor, the color changes as you tilt the screen. That might explain why different people see different colors, even on the same screen. If someone is looking over your shoulder, for instance, they will see a slightly different color. Plus, it helps if you already know the dress is blue and black.
2
A banner moment for Color Theory. Should be a big day for Joseph Albers books.
1
As my son said, "Doesn't matter. Send it back!"
3
Or: "Doesn't matter. I'll buy two!"
It's a techno-existentialist question because the actual colors in the photograph are pale blue and pale brownish. The blue is up for grabs, but getting from black to light brown is a technological semi-mystery and getting from pale brown to black is a psychological trick.
Either way, should a photograph like this or the testimony of anyone looking at it be allowed as evidence in court? Truth is a shady thing.
Either way, should a photograph like this or the testimony of anyone looking at it be allowed as evidence in court? Truth is a shady thing.
3
I don't even understand the nature of this "argument." Obviously the picture is not a very good representation of what the dress looked like in real life. So it was a bad pic. So what?
Maybe the dress actually was blue and black and, when photographed badly, the overexposed black bits took on a gold hue and the overexposed blue bits are a bit white. So what?
Maybe the dress actually was blue and black and, when photographed badly, the overexposed black bits took on a gold hue and the overexposed blue bits are a bit white. So what?
39
If you had seen the same photo two completely different ways, you'd know what the fuss is all about. It was white and gold when I looked at it, then somehow transformed to black and blue. Same photo. Same over or underexposure. Go figure.
1
It's interesting to scientists because it involves the differences in our photoreceptors and brain perception.
1
It's just a really bad picture, washed out and colors changed because of the light allowed in the camera.
Almost like a picture negative, where black is white.
Almost like a picture negative, where black is white.
5
Has the controversy or the article actually told us anything of significance?
Not to be cynical, but quite a few people don't seem to know much about color vision, photography, fabrics, photo interpretation, computer imaging, etc. :-)
viewing straight on I see white and gold, using a side, glance using periphrial vision I see blue and black.
When we look at things in real life our brains automatically correct for white balance based on lighting. When I look out my window now at the snow in the bright sunshine under a blue sky it looks white. If I look at the same scene tonight with the snow under street lights it will still look white. I think when people look at this photo their brains are trying to do the same kind of correction but it doesn't always work out right because of the quality of the photo and the background.
Having said all that, the customer reviews on the Amazon page for the dress make this whole thing almost worthwhile.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Roman-Womens-Detail-Bodycon-Dress/dp/B00SJEUCWU
Having said all that, the customer reviews on the Amazon page for the dress make this whole thing almost worthwhile.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Roman-Womens-Detail-Bodycon-Dress/dp/B00SJEUCWU
3
This was the most hilarious thing since Left Shark danced at the Superbowl. I love the Internet and especially the Twitter storms.
1
I have been sewing for 10+ years. Fabrics are weird in how they photograph and respond to light. Had one dress that was blue during the day and lavender at night. The thread I was using would match only to be in contrast in the evening. Yet it photographed another shade completely.
What is going on is that this dress’s black trim is a brown based black. Whites often appear to have blue tones when shaded. When color adjusted (or on some monitors) the black lace’s underlying brown colors come out and the blue is interpreted as white. On my Ipad, the same image appears white and gold, while on my Android phone it’s blue and black.
The quality of the pin tucks leave something to be desired.
What is going on is that this dress’s black trim is a brown based black. Whites often appear to have blue tones when shaded. When color adjusted (or on some monitors) the black lace’s underlying brown colors come out and the blue is interpreted as white. On my Ipad, the same image appears white and gold, while on my Android phone it’s blue and black.
The quality of the pin tucks leave something to be desired.
154
As a fellow seamstress this cracks me up!
That this can become something discussed by so many tells us something about the present moment in our culture, but what is it?
My own guess: People are so affluent they have far too much time on their hands.
My own guess: People are so affluent they have far too much time on their hands.
2
"When mass shootings happen in America, we shrug and change the channel. "
I've heard a lot of criticism this morning of the discussion of this dress (and those llamas) amidst the mass murder in Missouri overnight.
At this point, what else CAN we do but shrug and move on? I'm a heavy consumer of news, and right now my observation is that some kind of mass shooting - 4+ people, usually family members - happens at least twice a week in this country now. Three people getting killed at once? Even more common. People are numb. They know nothing will change, because the laws won't change. They can't possibly grieve for the victims the way they'd like to because this now happens EVERY WEEK somewhere out there.
So on a Thursday night or Friday, what are they going to do? They're going to escape into something safe to think about and talk about. Not gun control, not politics, but something everybody can have some opinion- serious or lighthearted - about without getting the other half of the country riled up.
I've heard a lot of criticism this morning of the discussion of this dress (and those llamas) amidst the mass murder in Missouri overnight.
At this point, what else CAN we do but shrug and move on? I'm a heavy consumer of news, and right now my observation is that some kind of mass shooting - 4+ people, usually family members - happens at least twice a week in this country now. Three people getting killed at once? Even more common. People are numb. They know nothing will change, because the laws won't change. They can't possibly grieve for the victims the way they'd like to because this now happens EVERY WEEK somewhere out there.
So on a Thursday night or Friday, what are they going to do? They're going to escape into something safe to think about and talk about. Not gun control, not politics, but something everybody can have some opinion- serious or lighthearted - about without getting the other half of the country riled up.
6
I love finding clothes with ambiguous coloring, or those that change a bit depending on the light. The dress in question, to my eye, looks platinum with a gold lace trim, but I think that's away from the light source. I wonder if the designer could have imagined this much publicity!
So where is the analysis? Why does "the actual dress" to the left appear blue and black, but the dress in the photo above appear white and gold? Just running the story makes the NYT like ABC News running YouTube kitten videos.
When I was clearing several feet of snow following our first two blizzards, I was astonished to see (in occasional sunlight) the bright flames of iridescent blue shining out at me from snow. It was exactly the same as the glowing blue of glaciers I recall seeing in Alaska.
1
Commenters who are so sure that it's a photography/screen monitor thing and "what's the big deal?" are completely ignoring one of the mysteries of the dress: More than one people can look at the exact same image of the dress at the same time and see different colors. That's why the Scottish woman posted in the first place: multiple people looking at one image simultaneously saw either blue and black or white and gold.
In other words, husband and wife/mom and daughter/neighbor and neighbor can look at this photo of the dress and see two different sets of colors. Why is that? That's what people are interested in.
In other words, husband and wife/mom and daughter/neighbor and neighbor can look at this photo of the dress and see two different sets of colors. Why is that? That's what people are interested in.
22
Both are valid visual interpretations. White in blue ambient lighting or highly over exposed blue. Even one person will switch back and forth depending on what part of the photo you focus on. The real mystery of this photo is why the background cloth is darker value than the dress if they are both equally overexposed. That is why I concluded that no here is right and the overexposed dress is in fact blue and dark blue while the background cloth is darker value black.
1
Precisely so. Why is it that so many NYT commentators are so predictably dull-witted? Only ISIS, global warming or perhaps the debate over the Core Curriculum are "news", the vagaries of human perception being of no possible interest. Beyond that is, dismissing such things out of hand, lest any opportunity to demonstrate one's "seriousness" be allowed to slip by.
5
As others have pointed out, it's an overexposed photograph. The camera was pointed at the (blue and black; i.e., dark) dress at close range, tricking the exposure meter into thinking it was a dark environment. To compensate, it lengthened the exposure time, which resulted in lightening the image. The washed-out background, particularly on the right, confirms this.
8
I looked up the supposedly "scientific" explanation for this, but the variability of our rods and cones does not explain why the two photos accompanying this article read, for me, as bluish-white and gold and cobalt blue and black. I'm putting the entire dress kerfuffle down to an overexposed photo and a wide range of screen settings on devices worldwide. If you learn anything from this, it should be the unreliability of purchasing clothing and furnishings online. That "actual dress" doesn't even look like the same one in the top photo. There are some subtle differences.
I hope the wedding was fun.
I hope the wedding was fun.
11
Addendum: As a fan of mysteries I would like to mention the elephant-sized anomaly in the room. This wedding took place in February, in chilly Scotland. What is the likelihood that a fashionable woman woman would turn up in a white dress with gold trim? And the mother of the bride, no less? It is a faux pas for the MOB to wear clothing too much like that of her daughter, the bride.
1
"... the unreliability of purchasing clothing and furnishings online."
Good point, although commercial web site photographers should know better than to use cheap phone cameras and uncontrolled lighting ...
Good point, although commercial web site photographers should know better than to use cheap phone cameras and uncontrolled lighting ...
Color constancy means that objects color have to do with the relative color of their surroundings. It is a fascinating subject.
http://gurneyjourney.blogspot.com/2010/01/color-constancy.html
Take a sample of the "white" in this dress as a square and put it against a complimentary orange background in photoshop and it will not appear white but blue.
This picture is particularly disorienting because even though our eyes adjust for relative color we have certain "memory" colors that are hard for us to wrap our heads around. It is hard for us to imagine true "black" appearing as a lighter value than the cloth in the background and we are right because natural conditions would rarely present such a lighting configuration.
That means that the dress could have been gold and white taken in a room with ambient blue lighting or blue and black with very strong over exposure as it appears from the background and actually warm lighting which warmed the black toward brown or relative gold. The question is if there was such strong over exposed lighting why did the black of the dress decrease in value so drastically but the background dappled cloth's black remained darker in value?
It is possible that there was a shadow blocking but it doesn't look like it. My conclusion is that everyone is wrong. The dress is not white and gold, or black and blue. rather it is blue and very dark blue or even dark brown.
My other conclusion is that we are all nuts for spending time on this.
http://gurneyjourney.blogspot.com/2010/01/color-constancy.html
Take a sample of the "white" in this dress as a square and put it against a complimentary orange background in photoshop and it will not appear white but blue.
This picture is particularly disorienting because even though our eyes adjust for relative color we have certain "memory" colors that are hard for us to wrap our heads around. It is hard for us to imagine true "black" appearing as a lighter value than the cloth in the background and we are right because natural conditions would rarely present such a lighting configuration.
That means that the dress could have been gold and white taken in a room with ambient blue lighting or blue and black with very strong over exposure as it appears from the background and actually warm lighting which warmed the black toward brown or relative gold. The question is if there was such strong over exposed lighting why did the black of the dress decrease in value so drastically but the background dappled cloth's black remained darker in value?
It is possible that there was a shadow blocking but it doesn't look like it. My conclusion is that everyone is wrong. The dress is not white and gold, or black and blue. rather it is blue and very dark blue or even dark brown.
My other conclusion is that we are all nuts for spending time on this.
5
".. we are all nuts for spending time on this."
Speak for yourself. This problem illustrates interesting interactions between photography and perception.
Speak for yourself. This problem illustrates interesting interactions between photography and perception.
3
I agree it is fascinating. I am not sure that it should be the number one topic burning down the internet.
1
The colors have everything to do with the quality of the monitor used to view it. Six monitors in my office and the picture has different shades on each monitor. So who really cares what color it is?
10
You're missing the point. Two people looking at the same monitor will look at the dress and see different colors. I originally thought the dress was white and gold. I scrolled down to see a better picture, scrolled back up and the colors had changed to blue and black. It's interesting because it shows how we perceive color and light.
3
"So who really cares what color it is? "
Dress designers ...
Dress designers ...
Try as I might I still only see white and gold.
7
Squint your eyes and scroll to the bottom of the dress.
I also only saw white and gold.... and then I scrolled back up and >boom!< it was blue and black.
I have no idea why that happened.
I have no idea why that happened.
1
I could only see white and gold and at first I thought anyone who claimed black and blue was just "trolling". But the appearance literally changed while I was looking at it, and now I can only see blue and black.
If you hold a jar of mustard up to the original photo on the display screen, the "gold" or "black" is actually a darker brown than the mustard, but it's definitely not black. If you hold up a sheet of white paper, the "white" or "blue" is actually a grey-blue, but definitely not royal blue. Presumably our opinions are biased by our brains trying to fix the camera's errant exposure and white balance adjustment. I can only interpret the original as white & gold, and was stunned by the "actual dress" image. What a great Friday distraction!
2
You people are all crazy, this dress is obviously burgundy and cyan! What else could it be but burgundy and cyan, the only colors seen at Scottish weddings? Oh it makes me want to head to Syria to join the Daesh, these crazed infidel mistranslations of coloration.
2
Well Steve, no idea about the numerical values, but burgundy is a reddish purple color like dark red wine (or "burgundy" wine) and cyan is a light greenish-blue with hints of yellow. But really, this here comment was a completely facetious joke on my part.
You can use a color picker app to find the RGB values:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_tool
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_tool
The fact that the color of a stupid dress has taken up so much media time sounds to me like the End of Civilization.
32
It is a well known fact among wedding photographers, those who used film way back when, that photographing "white" dresses was filled with problems. White tended to burn out if the rest of the photo was correctly exposed. White also tends to take on the color of light reflected from the surrounding environment. On top of that is the problem of a bride wearing undergarments of synthetic material which, with the correct lighting, glow towards the blue end of the spectrum. I also know from my experience with black/white film photos that shadows contain a lot of blue. Also, early digital cameras had chips which did not render colors correctly, requiring manufacturer(s) to include a before the lens filter to provide correction. My sister used to be a painter. She always said that if you wanted to know the true color of something, put it next to a white card in sunlight. For myself, if you want to know the color of Ms. McNeil's dress, then meet her at a restaurant.
20
Thanks for your informative comment. Some people are reporting that the colors change *on screen*. Can you suggest a reason for that?
"shadows contain a lot of blue"
Not really. It depends on the ambient lighting. Often ambient lighting will be cool because of the blue sky and artificial light sources- but not always.
Not really. It depends on the ambient lighting. Often ambient lighting will be cool because of the blue sky and artificial light sources- but not always.
In the context of shadows containing a lot of blue, I was thinking of subjects under a tree on a sunlit day. Shadows in clouds. But I distinctly remember Polaroid, yeah the 1st instant photos, color prints with lots of bluish shadows. Id like to also say that the manufacturer of a particular film made a difference, which may also apply to a digital camera's post-processing. When I used to photograph artist's paintings, I'd vary the film based on my subjective judgement of a painting's palette. My goal to use a film manufacturer's palette to somewhat counteract the painting's palette, thus provide a more realistic rendition of the true painting's palette in the final photographic slide. For example, Fuji slide film seemed to be slightly favoring pastels, Kodak slightly favoring strong colors and Agfa slightly neutral. So I'd combine a strongly colored painting's palette with its "opposite" (Fuji film) palette. Never the less, I agree with your comment that it depends on the light source.
1
If you stand on one leg while kicking the dog with the other, it's clearly orange (as long as you turn you head like this). OMG, there's Waldo. And Jimmy Hoffa!
23
Interesting that as far along as the story and many facts and explanations were available, the NYT has the least informative article of any notable news outlet. For the curious, it's blue and black and as I'm not sure the times will allow a link to another publication, just go to Google news and search: confused-the-internet-but-science-has-the-answer for the best explanation I've come across. Oh, and NYT... Really?
9
A picture of the original dress is included in the article.
That article isn't the greatest (and the Independent's website crashed my browser), but the Wired article that it links to is much better: http://www.wired.com/2015/02/science-one-agrees-color-dress/
The llamas are black and white.
News? Shmooze.
News? Shmooze.
4
For all of you who see blue/black - I only see white/gold! 100% white/gold! My son though sees blue/black. And, like another commentator, when I look at the actual strongly colored dress picture and then scroll back up, the dress looks more blue-ish (though still far more white, and very gold). We need Oliver Sacks to weigh in, oh dear.
4
"We need Oliver Sacks to weigh in, oh dear."
We need people to say what software they are you using and how it is configured.
We need people to say what software they are you using and how it is configured.
Except kid & I were looking at the same computer at the same time. Our eyes and brains are the issue, not the screen. And that is what makes this intriguing. The dress looks entirely white and gold to me and entirely blue and black to him and from all the fuss, that is what is going on everywhere with others.
3
"kid & I were looking at the same computer at the same time.kid & I were looking at the same computer at the same time."
Thanks for your clarification. That is a *very* important piece of information. Did you try different viewing angles?
Thanks for your clarification. That is a *very* important piece of information. Did you try different viewing angles?
How utterly shallow and empty people's lives must be to have this be something over which they obsess. People have come to have the attention span of a ferret.
26
And yet you still took the time to comment...
5
I don't get these types of comments. There are many more trivial things we could talk about than this. This raises interesting questions about how the brain perceives reality--and how different brains perceive the same reality. There's more substance in that than much of what people talk about, and while it is obviously less important than ISIS and the economy etc., we can't, and shouldn't, talk about those things ALL DAY. Or do you spend every minute of every day contemplating what we are doing to the planet?
8
No. Read the color constancy link several comments abive yours and you will see why your eyes and another person's will see so very differently.
While the dress is obviously blue and black, I do see a white smudge on the front. Hey! Is this that Monica Lewinski dress???
5
Thanks for covering this, NYTimes. I know it sounds silly to some, but this whole thing has been a fascinating, baffling experience. At times I was sure (and many others felt the same) that thousands of people online were lying just to create drama. It was mind-boggling to realize they weren't.
The dramatic variations in how people see this dress *seem* to have something to do with light settings on each person's computer monitor. Which is a very prosaic answer to what felt, for awhile, like an existential debate.
The dramatic variations in how people see this dress *seem* to have something to do with light settings on each person's computer monitor. Which is a very prosaic answer to what felt, for awhile, like an existential debate.
14
"... something to do with light settings on each person's computer monitor."
Exactly. All this brouhaha and no one seems to have reported the software they are using or its configuration.
Exactly. All this brouhaha and no one seems to have reported the software they are using or its configuration.
2
I have a very high end, 30" monitor that has special graphic design calibration software built into it, and I rely on it for editing photos for publication.
The dress IN THE PHOTO appears to be gray or a violetty gray. It could be a white dress in shadow. The Jacket is CLEARLY this color. That jacket is not deep royal blue, no way no how.
Since the actual dress IS royal blue, someone has deliberately overexposed this image via photoshop, to distort its appearance. It's a hoax.
The dress IN THE PHOTO appears to be gray or a violetty gray. It could be a white dress in shadow. The Jacket is CLEARLY this color. That jacket is not deep royal blue, no way no how.
Since the actual dress IS royal blue, someone has deliberately overexposed this image via photoshop, to distort its appearance. It's a hoax.
It used to be "All the news that's fit to print."
Now, apparently, it is "All the news that gets us clicks."
Now, apparently, it is "All the news that gets us clicks."
22
Here's an admittedly radical idea: rather than crowdsourcing the correct answer, ASK the mother of the bride, or the bride. Remember when reporters used to actually track down and talk to primary sources?
5
The correct answer is known--see the photo of the actual dress. The question is why the posted photo looks different to different people.
6
I wish thie piece would have explained why the dress looks white and gold in the first photo. And black and blue in the second. It needed a quote from an opthomologist, or some photo-science expert.
17
This is probably the work of the devil.
80
In that case, the Goat Lord is REALLY bored.
3
Nah, the devil wears Prada, I've heard.
5
When I orginally look at it I seen white & gold. Then several hours later I seen blue & black. Can someone please explain this to me.
This whole thing screams for a Return the Arts to the school curriculum.If you look at the 2 versions of the photos side by side you can clearly see the landscape in the right side of the background of the darker one and the lighter dress one has no landscape, like the underexposed pic that it is according to screen color adjustments. Wow. No wonder this country fell for War of the Worlds and Bill O'Reilly for that matter.
8
I can't believe Spock just died. There goes our only hope of anyone explaining the damn dress.
159
Who cares what color it is!!!
Thank you Lost. You made my day.
1
It's just a dress dawg
There is black and white fabric to the left of the dress. If we can agree on that, then we agree the dress is black and blue.
I can accept THAT (the black trim photographing as a bronze-y brown). But the photographed dress itself is not ROYAL blue (as the real dress is). Either the sunlight absolutely threw the color balance off in the camera, OR someone diddled with it in Photoshop.
1
This is quite fascinating. Please publish a science story explaining what's going on here. I see blue and black - and a rather deep blue at that.
6
I think we can all agree that cameras in most phones are truly awful.
7
It's UGLY. Now git back to work.
44
Readers and many commenters seem not to be in on the joke. Today might be a good day for you to visit Tumblr for the first time.
1
I agree with the comments that this article is not newsworthy for the NYTs. What I think would be interesting and appropriate for the NYTs is to present the fact that this has become an internet sensation together with a scientific explanation of the phenomenon.
61
I agree - that's why I clicked on this article in the first place, hoping to find an interesting explanation for all of it. I was disappointed to read the same things everyone else is saying. "It's all over the internet!" "Everyone is weighing in!" I already knew that.
9
I don't really get the newsworthiness criticism. We have to suffer through all those "If you're thinking of living in Cos Cob" and "What you get for....$50 million" fluff pieces anyway, so I don't see how this is much worse. It actually seems to fit within the Media section purview.
Some scientific analysis has been added to this story.
Our Science desk gets into a bit more detail in this online sidebar.
Our Science desk gets into a bit more detail in this online sidebar.
9
I feel like the only person in the world not in on this joke. It must be a joke right? It's clearly blue and black. I'm very confused. If this is a joke someone fill me in please.
1
I see the Virgin Mary but that's still not newsworthy.
55
What colors are "The actual dress"?
1
Apparently blue and black.
2
Good question. This article should be moved to the Tech or Science desk. Why is it under Business?
I see a reason to turn off my computer, go out and take a walk, look at the ice on the half-frozen Hudson and wonder why it looks so white and the unfrozen part of the river looks so black, when in reality both are clear. Hmmmmm.
55
I see this as an excellent metaphor for race. I'll leave it to you to figure out why.
1
What would Jesus say?
1
The dress does not appear to be very racy.
I see dead people.
(That goes over better in real life because of my striking resemblance to Haley Joel Osment).
(That goes over better in real life because of my striking resemblance to Haley Joel Osment).
5
What is interesting when ISIS kills 140 children , nobody cares . But now the whole world is concerned about the color of the dress ! Lord I think our society has changed, changed the moral interests , and every day things get worse !
39
People care - a lot! But even in a world filled with monsters, folks need an occasional respite from the ceaseless misery.
32
Dan's right, there's not a dang thing we civilians can do about jihadists' constant killing sprees. But this is a funny, harmless, digression, and it's good to take a break from the harsh realities of human idiocy every now and then.
13
ANTON, I don't think people care about the color of the dress. They care about why individuals see it differently. It's fascinating to me that perception of color can vary this much, and I would love to understand the science behind it.
7
"A White and Gold Dress Overloads the Internet" states the headline, but the photo purported to be the actual dress clearly shows a blue and black dress. So who at the Times made that headline up?
6
The photo appears way overexposed and makes the dress look white and gold if you don't take that into account. When I copy the photo in this article into a simple photo editing program and adjust the brightness and contrast, it looks blue and black. I think this is less about perception than a poorly taken photo.
14
Is ugly a color?
10
I don't know, but it is an attitude. Yeesh.
3
Wouldn't it be more appropriate for the NYTimes to investigate why this perception difference is happening? A little science perhaps?
119
Objects are not imaged veridically because the spectral sensitivities of the detectors of imaging devices differ from those of the human eye. Furthermore, display monitors all differ in their spectral displays. Therefore, viewers will all be presented a different image, and ten percent of the male viewers will have color anomalies that will give them an additional fillip.
See Shevell, S. (Ed) The Science of Color, Second Edition. Optical Society of America, 2003. See the chapter on imaging and printing.
See Shevell, S. (Ed) The Science of Color, Second Edition. Optical Society of America, 2003. See the chapter on imaging and printing.
3
It could be the imaging software that is making the changes ...
1
Let me assure you that our best and brightest minds are on the case!
EDIT 5:04pm: Here it is: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/02/28/science/white-or-blue-dress.html
EDIT 5:04pm: Here it is: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/02/28/science/white-or-blue-dress.html
15
The first time I saw it, I saw white and gold. I could not imagine how anyone could see anything else. I scrolled down and saw the picture of the actual dress, and I went back up, and now I only see blue and black. It is as if the first picture got switched, and I can't imagine how I saw white and gold. It is obviously an optical illusion of some sort. We need an expert on optical illusions/colors to explain this.
14
I agree- My experience was similar to yours Tony.. The 1st image appeared white & gold and I too scrolled back up after I saw the actual dress image and ... the dress was black & blue. Odd and a slight distraction from a cold winters day.
4
Right there with ya. It was completely white and gold earlier and then when I came back, opposite blue and black.
3
It's both. By my screen, which is reasonably well adjusted, it looks white and gold, with a light blue tinge to the white. At the displayed exposure, it could easily be pure white with the white balance on the camera set a bit cool for the lighting (shade is often bluish--look at shadows in any outside photo). If you put it in Photoshop and do some minor density adjustments, it becomes medium blue and black (Most blacks are not true black, but just very dark versions of some color). While it may in reality be medium blue and black, if that is what you are seeing your screen may be too dark. Screen inconsistency is a big problem for photographers. Google Monitor Calibration and check your screen. For basic brightness, it's easy.
4
"If you put it in Photoshop and do some minor density adjustments, ..."
Have you seen any software that makes such adjustments *automatically*? (On a smartphone, say)
Have you seen any software that makes such adjustments *automatically*? (On a smartphone, say)
When I first saw it I swore it was white and gold. When I saw the retailer's picture in correct lighting and went back to the original picture I saw it more blue than white. It's a mind trick. Look at the black article of clothing behind the dress for at least 30 seconds, then look at the dress again. It should appear more black and blue.
5
I don't know how this can be, but when I started reading the article, the dress was white and gold and now it's blue and black.
8
You're looking at two different pics. Scroll up and down to verify that. The top is gold & white, the bottom one is blue & black.
Take 5 seconds to adjust levels & white balance it in an image editing program, then view it on a display that is color accurate. It's white & gold.
Now go feed the homeless or something else actually useful.
Now go feed the homeless or something else actually useful.
21
I'm in a 40-day Facebook Detox which has made me think more about important things rather than this. I found out about this whole debate today when my boyfriend (who doesn't like things that go viral) made a joke if his jacket was black and blue or white and gold.... I didn't have any clue what he was talking about until reading this.
Honestly, who cares?
Honestly, who cares?
4
A little tired of the comments saying why is anyone paying attention to this when they could be sweating bullets about ISIS. A little frivolity in the form of a visual mystery isn't a terrible thing for people to spend a couple of minutes on, and that's all they're doing. People aren't worthless slobs just because they take a break now and again, and the same is true for the Times. Lighten up, people! The glass is half full! (no, wait! It' really half.....)
22
AS SHOT the dress is white & gold. But I'm pretty sure the white balance of the camera is way off. Take the photo of the actual blue & black dress, use your photo editor and adjust the color temp to be super-warm. You'll end up with the exact results shown at the top of the page.
It IS fun however, if you stare intently at the blue & black dress, then scroll quickly up to the white & gold version. It momentarily shifts towards blue and black!l Receptors are magic!
It IS fun however, if you stare intently at the blue & black dress, then scroll quickly up to the white & gold version. It momentarily shifts towards blue and black!l Receptors are magic!
What's going on? The first time I looked at the photo to the left it was gold and white. After I finished the article I scrolled up and it was blue & black. Are they rotating pictures? Why doesn't the NYT explain?
6
What software are you using?
I feel like I'm the only person who sees it as neither.
I see it as sky blue and tacky gold.
What is wrong with me?
I see it as sky blue and tacky gold.
What is wrong with me?
16
What's wrong with you? That's easy. You need to say something mean about a mother of the bride dress.
2
Well, we wouldn't want to offend the dress, now would we?
That's what spouse and I see, too. We're either all brilliant and infallible, or freaks of nature.
The fact that things like this go viral and make their way onto important news outlets, whereas a vast majority of people probably have no idea what something as important as net neutrality is, causes me to lose faith in the intelligence of the human race.
79
At least some of us still have some sense of fun. What could we have done to save humanity during the 120 seconds it took to look at this article and comment?
17
Life covers the gamut of the horrific to whimsical. Sometimes we need one to counterbalance the other. Times are so hard that I think people latch on to stuff like this as an escape. I personally find it fascinating because I'm a graphic designer/photographer.
11
I guarantee you that saving humanity was not the alternative activity on most people's lists.
1
No one but the bride should wear white to a wedding, certainly not the MOB. So... dress is blue and black, end of story.
6
I would like to point out, at the moment, that this article is featured more prominently on the NYT's front-page than the one titled "Gunman Kills 7 in a Small Missouri Town." This isn't to say this odd explosion of internet culture isn't newsworthy, or that the Times has failed somehow. This IS to say that in our country, a mass-shooting is no longer considered especially noteworthy. When mass shootings happen in the Czech Republic, heads of state get involved. When mass shootings happen in America, we shrug and change the channel.
208
Maybe the number of mass shootings would go down if we didn't give them so much attention.
1
Maybe, after paying respect to the victims, we *should* shrug and change the channel. It would be great if attention-seeking gunmen knew that taking lives wouldn't mean that we would all pore over all the details of their lives, their relationships, and every word of every ill-conceived internet manifesto they've posted, for weeks on end. Oh, wait, that's what we do every time.
5
Mass shootings occur every day but we ignore them.
We might reduce some of the killing if we paid more attention to perception and how the brain works.
Look up color constancy or the link five in one comment. Then perhaps you will stat tho understand better how differently we perceive.
(This reply is not meant as a put down but rather as how context and experience enable very different perceptions. )
We might reduce some of the killing if we paid more attention to perception and how the brain works.
Look up color constancy or the link five in one comment. Then perhaps you will stat tho understand better how differently we perceive.
(This reply is not meant as a put down but rather as how context and experience enable very different perceptions. )
1
Is it over exposure? Then what color is the simple jacket.
I see a white and gold dress with a coordinated white short jacket.
It looks nothing like the blue and black dress shown separately.
Can someone explain this phenomenon?
I see a white and gold dress with a coordinated white short jacket.
It looks nothing like the blue and black dress shown separately.
Can someone explain this phenomenon?
7
People confusing the phenomenological and ontological. Then there's science - how digital images work, how people perceive brightness and color, etc.
Personally, saw that the lighting and exposure was undesirable for taking good photos - and knew that the colors would be off.
Personally, saw that the lighting and exposure was undesirable for taking good photos - and knew that the colors would be off.
3
Either way, horizontal stripes make you look fat.
98
I can't believe the New York Times got sucked into this nonsense. But then, I did.
145
The NYT is using this example to teach us about the science of perception.
1
I see light blue and gold in this picture.
2
Only the polka dots are blue.
32
Id like to hear what Ben Smith considers "real" culture.
Is there any media outlet with just a modicum of respect for itself that will simply refrain from talking about this stupid dress?
76
I see an ugly dress.
15
A lot of color blind folks in the world.
In the media site photos the dress is blue and gold there is no white in this dress.
In one photo shown in article it looks black and blue- again no white.
In the media site photos the dress is blue and gold there is no white in this dress.
In one photo shown in article it looks black and blue- again no white.
2
So why would you buy a dress that changed color on you?
1
That's easy: two for the price of one!
Not to be a total buzz kill or anything, but pretty said when our culture considers this NEWS.
27
Sad?
Sad...?
The photograph shows a washed out (over exposed) black and blue dress.
The over exposure may be confusing people.
It is interesting that many people are having a problem with this.
The over exposure may be confusing people.
It is interesting that many people are having a problem with this.
32
No, what's interesting is that you assume it is the other people who are "having a problem with this."
Don't you recognize that the White and Gold folks think you're the one who's confused?
Don't you recognize that the White and Gold folks think you're the one who's confused?
8
Is it overexposed? Yeah. Is that the only reason people see different colors? No. Our brains have a terrible time telling the true color of something in shadow; we almost always see it as a much lighter color. Check out the Checker-shadow Illusion.
It is a washed out photograph, but I think something else seems to be going on here. At first all I saw was gold and white, I couldn't understand where people were getting blue and black from. Now I can't see the gold and white at all. I think there is some sort of optical effect and our brain's perception of it rather than it just being washed out or it being the result of the screens we view it on.
4
I see 50 shades of grey.
87
Everyone relax, NYT is NoT switching the photos on you:) it's just how our eyes and brains manage to clear out the "noise" in the image. Influenced by the background, the brain quickly jumps to white & gold for most people. Here's one of the many "clarification" articles that popped up: http://www.wired.com/2015/02/science-one-agrees-color-dress/
@meduzad: "... NYT is NoT switching the photos ..."
The Times frequently updates online articles, and it has done so here. Maybe, in a million years, the Times will figure out how to report article version numbers, so readers don't have to use NewDiffs:
http://newsdiffs.org/article-history/www.nytimes.com/2015/02/28/business...
The Times frequently updates online articles, and it has done so here. Maybe, in a million years, the Times will figure out how to report article version numbers, so readers don't have to use NewDiffs:
http://newsdiffs.org/article-history/www.nytimes.com/2015/02/28/business...
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sensorium/201502/whatcoloristhedress-0