Anonymous wrote:
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.
Those of us who see it as white and gold (and I've read the articles and seen the real blue/black dress and manipulated my screen every way and it's always white and gold to me), are also compensating, we're just compensating for different assumed lighting. So, we see it as if it's in shadow, with too much light behind it, causing the dress itself to be heavily shadowed. To me, the dress looks like a white dress with a bluish grayish shadow on it. Even when I know it's not true, that it's overexposed not underexposed, I can't see it that way.