on February 27 2015 15:35:34
Here's a Norwegian article with a user poll:
http://www.nrk.no/kultur/debatten-raser-pa-twitter_-hvilke-farger-er-det-pa-denne-kjolen_-1.12232435 |
on February 27 2015 16:20:08
It's obviously blue and black.
I think the one factor most people are overlooking is the medium through which the image is viewed, i.e. the screen. I think it's just screens with incorrectly set white balance and/or color temperature that are the reason why people see this differently. |
on February 27 2015 20:15:11
White and gold |
on February 27 2015 22:20:09
@OKJones: Troll |
on February 28 2015 00:33:33
I've seen it on several screens and several devices in different lighting conditions and sourced from different pages.
It's always the same: White and brown/gold |
on February 28 2015 12:10:35
It's obviously blue and black, though the black is a bit dirty and could pass for weathered bronze.
Read somewhere, (wired, ifls) that 75% of people see it as white, which gave this gem of a reply from vuzman: "Trolls, trolls all the way down." |
on February 28 2015 14:07:31
Hvitur og gold/brúnur. Akkurà t lika sum spælibúnarnir hjá Eb/streymi |
on February 28 2015 15:35:05
LOL @ Spiff - handan er genial! |
on March 02 2015 12:42:42
 |
on March 02 2015 13:58:53
I did a similar picure, but I can't add pictures to a thread - maybe that's only for superadmins.
So I'll refer you again to the the picture in the link below where the border is black and ask you the same question. If the brownish colour is supposed to be black, then what colour are the big blocks to the left and right of the picture?
http://www.nrk.no/kultur/debatten-raser-pa-twitter_-hvilke-farger-er-det-pa-denne-kjolen_-1.12232435 |
on March 02 2015 14:09:29
There, I fixed your dress.  |
on March 02 2015 14:17:34
I did a similar picure, but I can't add pictures to a thread - maybe that's only for superadmins.
Admin Panel > Images |
on March 02 2015 14:43:39
The black is admittedly not really black. As Norlander puts it "the black is a bit dirty and could pass for weathered bronze." But it's easy tell that it's supposed to be black from the overexposure and yellow cast which dominates the rest of the picture.
One explanation tries to explain the people seeing white/gold as their eyes seeing the photo as underexposed. I don't understand this, as the photo is clearly overexposed; the blown-out background should make that obvious.
Here's another photo which I artificially overexposed. The black is clearly not black, but you see that it's supposed to be black. In both pictures the blue is just a lighter version of blue than it's supposed to be. Definitely not white. Tell me you see white and gold and I will find, and I will kill you....
 |
on March 02 2015 18:40:14
One explanation tries to explain the people seeing white/gold as their eyes seeing the photo as underexposed. I don't understand this as the photo is clearly overexposed; the blown-out background should make that obvious.
To me, it looks like the picture is taken by a window or door with sunlight outside. This would then give the dress (inside in the shade) a blueish tinge. So you may be on to something. |
on March 03 2015 08:35:17
Ok, lets say I take a picture of that dress and I focus on that dress (which in this case it clearly is), the camera will try and meter (adjust for light) from either the white or the gold part of the dress. If this is correct then the very bright part of the picture (a sun or light from a window) is of course overexposed, hence the dress being somewhat correctly exposed. And by that the colors are somewhat correct. If it was the other way round, the dress was underexposed and the lightsource(sun, window light) was correctly exposed, the dress might have been black and blue, I don't know.
Another thing is that the blueish tint could just be an incorrect white balance, if you would make it a bit warmer, it would have a yellow/ tint instead. |
on March 03 2015 09:26:10
OK...
Here is a 40-second explanation with video of the dress and different light exposures and colour balances.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-31666458 |
on March 03 2015 14:45:02
One is black and blue, and one is white and gold. Guess who is who.
A bit of temperature, exposure, saturation and shadow bump.
 |
on March 03 2015 17:11:20
I'm curious, is that *actually* how you see the dress in the original picture? Really? As in you actually see the blue parts as white? In the picture below I pasted the image from the BBC video. Yes, it clearly becomes white and gold in the video, but also, it clearly isn't all the way there in the original picture.
So, are these two identical in your head?:
(click for bigger version)
|
on March 03 2015 23:58:38
John Oliver had a bit on this, saying it was white...
I'm still going with the "Trolls, trolls all the way down." |
on March 04 2015 08:31:03
Yes, my brain tells me that it's white and gold. Of course I know that it's not 100% white, but we see these underexposed pictures every day, we are used to the idea of white being mush.
Oh and that black is just as black as that blue is white.
If someone tells me to think of black and blue, I think of the colours on eb/streymur's outfit, where as you obviously think of that white and gold dress. |
on March 04 2015 09:32:33
http://politiken.dk/viden/ECE2571837/den-blaa-farve-fandtes-ikke-foer-moderne-tid/ |
on March 17 2015 11:03:54
I hadn't noticed that XKCD had a comic on this:
http://xkcd.com/1492/ |
WTF
