What color is this dress?

[Anonymous]

If I tilted the screen I saw it different ways, but at first I couldn't believe anyone could see anything other than gold and white.

Then I got to reading this other article which shows a chess board and a green cylinder making a shadow, and you have to guess which color is darker -- the grey square of the white square in the shadows (and of course they're the same color). I can't do these things. My brain is hardwired. He doesn't like all of you trying to mess with him.

[Anonymous]

My coworkers and I all looked at the photo on the same computer at the same time and some saw blue and black (as did I) and some saw white and gold. We were all sure that we were right.
It depends on how you perceive colors apparently.
In real life the dress really is royal blue with black lace.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My coworkers and I all looked at the photo on the same computer at the same time and some saw blue and black (as did I) and some saw white and gold. We were all sure that we were right.
It depends on how you perceive colors apparently.
In real life the dress really is royal blue with black lace.

Yes. I saw the dress (more than one) on TV, they all looked blue and black. When I look at the picture though I see white and gold.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: oh come on PP.I'm a blue-seer, but if you don't think lighting affects color, you have never edited a photo in your life. The dress is objectively blue because there are other photos in other lighting that show it to be blue, not because someone used a color picker function on a badly lit picture in a piece of software.

White / gold seer here, and I get that the actual dress is a fairly dark blue and black, but what I'm curious about is what colors are in THIS picture. I'd love for the blue/black folks to chime in on what they mean by 'blue'. Are we talking a pale blue or the saturated blue of the other pictures?

Regardless I'm really looking forward to the biologist chiming in on what genetic differences lead to these perceptual variations.

Me too! It's definitely not a gender differential at least from my tiny pool of office coworkers. I wonder if there something about how you interpret the backlighting and the shading as being whether you're used to more natural light or use tomorrow to finish the light. Regardless, I still just see white and gold. Even though I know I'm wrong!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: oh come on PP.I'm a blue-seer, but if you don't think lighting affects color, you have never edited a photo in your life. The dress is objectively blue because there are other photos in other lighting that show it to be blue, not because someone used a color picker function on a badly lit picture in a piece of software.

White / gold seer here, and I get that the actual dress is a fairly dark blue and black, but what I'm curious about is what colors are in THIS picture. I'd love for the blue/black folks to chime in on what they mean by 'blue'. Are we talking a pale blue or the saturated blue of the other pictures?

Regardless I'm really looking forward to the biologist chiming in on what genetic differences lead to these perceptual variations.

Me too! It's definitely not a gender differential at least from my tiny pool of office coworkers. I wonder if there something about how you interpret the backlighting and the shading as being whether you're used to more natural light or use tomorrow to finish the light. Regardless, I still just see white and gold. Even though I know I'm wrong!

Sorry, that was a dictation fail. I meant to say whether youre used to more natural light or used to more artificial light.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: oh come on PP.I'm a blue-seer, but if you don't think lighting affects color, you have never edited a photo in your life. The dress is objectively blue because there are other photos in other lighting that show it to be blue, not because someone used a color picker function on a badly lit picture in a piece of software.

White / gold seer here, and I get that the actual dress is a fairly dark blue and black, but what I'm curious about is what colors are in THIS picture. I'd love for the blue/black folks to chime in on what they mean by 'blue'. Are we talking a pale blue or the saturated blue of the other pictures?

Regardless I'm really looking forward to the biologist chiming in on what genetic differences lead to these perceptual variations.

Me too! It's definitely not a gender differential at least from my tiny pool of office coworkers. I wonder if there something about how you interpret the backlighting and the shading as being whether you're used to more natural light or use tomorrow to finish the light. Regardless, I still just see white and gold. Even though I know I'm wrong!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: oh come on PP.I'm a blue-seer, but if you don't think lighting affects color, you have never edited a photo in your life. The dress is objectively blue because there are other photos in other lighting that show it to be blue, not because someone used a color picker function on a badly lit picture in a piece of software.

White / gold seer here, and I get that the actual dress is a fairly dark blue and black, but what I'm curious about is what colors are in THIS picture. I'd love for the blue/black folks to chime in on what they mean by 'blue'. Are we talking a pale blue or the saturated blue of the other pictures?

Regardless I'm really looking forward to the biologist chiming in on what genetic differences lead to these perceptual variations.

Me too! It's definitely not a gender differential at least from my tiny pool of office coworkers. I wonder if there something about how you interpret the backlighting and the shading as being whether you're used to more natural light or use tomorrow to finish the light. Regardless, I still just see white and gold. Even though I know I'm wrong!

I see a medium blue. Not light blue.

[Anonymous]

DH and I both saw white-gold. Both kids saw blue-black!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: oh come on PP.I'm a blue-seer, but if you don't think lighting affects color, you have never edited a photo in your life. The dress is objectively blue because there are other photos in other lighting that show it to be blue, not because someone used a color picker function on a badly lit picture in a piece of software.

White / gold seer here, and I get that the actual dress is a fairly dark blue and black, but what I'm curious about is what colors are in THIS picture. I'd love for the blue/black folks to chime in on what they mean by 'blue'. Are we talking a pale blue or the saturated blue of the other pictures?

Regardless I'm really looking forward to the biologist chiming in on what genetic differences lead to these perceptual variations.

Me too! It's definitely not a gender differential at least from my tiny pool of office coworkers. I wonder if there something about how you interpret the backlighting and the shading as being whether you're used to more natural light or use tomorrow to finish the light. Regardless, I still just see white and gold. Even though I know I'm wrong!

[Anonymous]

I haven't read all the replies, but heard about this dress issue on NPR tonight. A neuroscientist explained why we see different colors in it, and the designer of the dress says it is blue and black.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:blue/black np here. Of course they are different blacks. All blacks are different in textiles (ever try to match a random pair of black pants and a black jacket that aren't designed to be a suit?) The black of the lace is not the sameas the black of the chair. But the lace on the dress is not gold.

Those of us who see the dress as blue/black are compensating for the way the photograph washes out the dress.

No. The dress IS blue and black.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am dying to see the blue and black. I keep going back and all I see is gold and white.

+1

Here:

Can you make it white and gold for me? Please?

Here:

This is the only picture so far that sorta looks gold and white, and the white looks more like a super faded blue. The picture looks very washed out, did you edit this picture?

I found it online, it has been overexposed. I have seen it looking both ways though and this is close approximation of what the dress looks like in white/gold. Except the gold is a bit darker when I see it in the original photo

OK, if people think this washed out mess looks white and gold they lack discernment. It's obvious that the picture is distorted due to overexposure

[Anonymous]

I have not read any of the articles explaining why certain people see the colors one way vs others, but do they explain why this never comes up day to day - for example, I see the dress as light blue with gold lace, but my spouse, who saw it as blue/black, and I have never before thought an item of clothing was different colors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:blue/black np here. Of course they are different blacks. All blacks are different in textiles (ever try to match a random pair of black pants and a black jacket that aren't designed to be a suit?) The black of the lace is not the sameas the black of the chair. But the lace on the dress is not gold.

Those of us who see the dress as blue/black are compensating for the way the photograph washes out the dress.

No. The dress IS blue and black.

uh yeah, that's what I said...if you see the blue and "black" you are taking the shitty lighting into account by thinking "that lace must be black or at least dark to appear as it does in those conditions." gold-seers are not compensating for the bad light and assume that the washed-out-ness is what it looks like in good light.

[Anonymous]

We can all agree it is butt fugly, right?

Yes.