So what colour *is* the dress?

Muzman on 18/4/2015 at 14:25

Quote Posted by Vicarious

The dress might be black and blue in reality but on that photo? Is this black?

Then I guess DXHR is all black:

Clearly not, since that image already has a wider contrast range present and a good reference for low values. Wider context might reveal some obscuring haze present too.

The question, although not especially clear I grant, was always what colour is the dress, not what colour values is the dress in this terrible poorly exposed image. Even though a lot of people tried to argue it that way.
That was a little surprising too actually, seeing people react that way so often (although it shouldn't be surprising I guess). I thought the concept of the colour of an object was usually thought of as broadly independant of light colour/conditions. I think it is most of the time.

Vicarious on 18/4/2015 at 14:53

Well, I'm not arguing that the dress is white and gold when it's objectively not. All I'm saying is that I see gold(ish) because the gold is actually there. It's not the chessboard illusion where two tiles appear to be black and white but when you isolate them they are both grey. In this case I see gold and when I isolate it it's still gold, not black. So it's more like the illusion is that some people see black when it's clearly not black. They do see the CORRECT colors but they still see it "wrong" because it's not black on that particular picture. :p

Personally, there's no way I can see the 'real' colors on that photo. I can see the bluish tint on the 'white' parts, sure, but the gold is very much gold to me. I can't imagine perceiving it as black. I have always assumed that those colors are not accurate (considering how oversaturated the rest of the photo is) but I can only see what is actually on the photo.

Muzman on 18/4/2015 at 15:47

Yeah, it's cool. I agree the chessboard shadow demo doesn't really get at what must be happening here. That's usually only working on one axis of the colour space, if I can term it that way, out of three. This is about several things at once. I think anyway.
For instance, the black isn't very dark, it's true, but right away I read that material as a satin like the blue material or possibly even translucent as well, with the white person flesh tone stand visible through it at the top there. (Apparently it is a shiny velour). It's got that reflective quality So that sort of sheen is going to wash it out even further in this kind of light.

The other thing is the 'white'. Gold I get, but I don't know how anyone sees that dress being white and coming up blue in that light. But that's life I suppose. Trying to figure out what the illusion is is interesting. I think from the over exposed and blown out exterior people must think (ie, their optic centres read) that this is an over brightened image that's actually in shadow with the sun behind it, the blue being the sky lighting or something. When it's a bit more confusing than that. But that's a simple scenario a brain might automatically account for, maybe.
But I'm only guessing. My eye is drawn to the matte material black and white dress that's behind the main one. That tells me a lot I need to know about parsing the image. Sort of 'That's white-that's black-that's shiny black - that's blue'. But who knows with brains and such

faetal on 18/4/2015 at 16:00

It'll be some kind of proximity defect in the visual cortex or something. Some set of contrast values which faded black & blue almost indistinguishable from white and gold not because they are, but just because of how the visual cortex reacts to those wavelengths in proximity.

The eyes and the associated neurology work is far from straightforward and by far one of the more fascinating areas of biology. It's no wonder creationists can't get their head round it.

WingedKagouti on 18/4/2015 at 16:21

Quote Posted by faetal

Read the article I linked - the dress is objectively black and blue - seeing it white and gold is an optical illusion.

[EDIT] Posted this to WK before I saw your reply Muzman, though in response to your post - it's an optical illusion - it's not likely to be based on your keen eye, but on specifically how your monitor displayed it.

"Optical Illusion" when the darkest parts of the dress in the posted image has RGB values close to 70 for Red, above 50 for Green and 30+ for Blue. I'm not sure what world would count that as Black.

The Blue parts do have 40-50% more Blue in them than Red or Green, so I'll give you that. But if it's supposed to appear as a Black and Blue dress, then either the photographer botched his skill check (with the backlighting that does seem likely) or the place you grabbed the image from messed with it.

van HellSing on 18/4/2015 at 17:03

For the longest time, it looked white and gold to me, until I viewed the image while completely exhausted and it was clearly black and blue. I had to do a double take and check if it wasn't a modified image. From that point onward it keeps flip-flopping on me.

bassoferrol on 18/4/2015 at 17:16

The colour of psychological manipulation.

bjack on 18/4/2015 at 18:02

The color of the dress is in fact blue and black (see link below). To me, the posted OP pic here appears mustard/gold + very pale white/indigo. This is what the camera picked up too. Actually it has been proposed it was the camera itself that caused this ruckus.

Over saturation of light washed out the colors and "tricked" the sensor to pick up gold and whitish blue, instead of the correct blue and black. There are loads (viral) of posts on this. A point was made that a person standing next to the camera would have seen the dress in its actual colors, not the ones picked up in the shot, except during the flash.

Many people have isolated small patches of the colors in the pic, then analyzed the colors with Photoshop and other products. The colors show as goldish and bluish white. If printed, the colors would be gold and white. The picture itself is technically not an optical illusion. The picture captured an optical illusion. It is the same as taking a picture of a mirage. The water is not really there, but the image of it is there to the eye or camera. A picture of the mirage captures the light trick. However, one cannot move forward in the picture and make the mirage disappear as one can in real life. It is real in the picture, or better yet the whole picture is unreal.

For those that see blue and black in this particular picture, have you seen the real dress colors? The gold part is absolutely carbon black. The blue is a medium electric blue. Compare the dress colors in the link below to the OP's posted pic. Do see them as exactly the same? If you do, then wow!

(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/02/27/2622E77200000578-2971409-image-a-41_1425005221455.jpg) http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/02/27/2622E77200000578-2971409-image-a-41_1425005221455.jpg

heywood on 18/4/2015 at 18:13

For me, it wasn't white/gold or blue/black. It was a purplish blue and dark bronze/brown. It doesn't look truly black in any of the natural light photos because it has a bit of sheen to it.

Renzatic on 18/4/2015 at 18:56

Quote Posted by faetal

Objectively, the dress is blue and blackish in real life. Anyone out looking at it in person would see it as those colors, save for maybe colorblind people. But this photo? It's about 15 different types of messed up, with the white balance and contrast all out of whack. It's right on the cusp of some weird threshold that makes people see either one or the other.

Like Vicarious kinda hinted at, if you run it through the color picker in Photoshop, it'll identify the bands as a darkish brown, and the blues more of a blue-white. To me, it looks like a white and gold dress in a room lit with a heavy blue light, so that the dress isn't really white the way I'm seeing it, but it looks like it would be if you saw it out in the sun.