It's interesting.. don't know why a few people in this thread are so butthurt that people are talking about it.
I 100% agree that it is interesting - photography and color perceptions are fascinating subjects. The thing that bothers my is the whole OMG reaction to it, but I guess that's the internet right there ...
On a funny nope, I really hope that the manufacturer of the dress will eventually produce a white and gold version of it
Is your phone screen extremely dark or with strange viewing angles ? Or are you saying that some versions of the image had their icc dropped somewhere along the way ?
The profile being dropped could very well be a possibility, but if that's the case the whole discussion becomes pretty much void of any meaning, because anyone can embed a crazy profile into any picture. I honestly doubt that any phone camera would go crazy with exotic profiles though ...
I'm saying the exact same version of the image looks clearly different depending on the screen. Most of the debate is down to people seeing things differently on the same screen. And my phone isn't overly dark, it's actually brighter than my other screens, also the image is same at all angles. The only main difference between these screens is the calibration.
Yeah of course - but what I am trying to get is that, if a picture has an embedded profile, the exact same picture file can look wildly different on two screens (even if the two screens are properly calibrated) because some viewing environments like image viewers and web browsers handle embedded profiles and screen profiles differently. Some respect them and are able to render the whole icc chain properly (from the picture profile down to the screen and eventually the printer), while some others are surprisingly inaccurate. For instance, on Windows, image thumbnails are not interpreted/rendered the same way as the images they represent. And from there, opening the same image file on the same computer can lead to wildly different renderings depending on the behavior of the image viewing environment.
Some web hosting image services are wonky in that regard too, converting files on the fly. And then other things happen if the file is stripped of its profile altogether, which I suppose is very likely to happen with cheap cameras like the one being used here.
But I do believe that the whole discussion is about the image when displayed "properly" (overexposed, with the pixels of the black parts being locally represented as brown/gold), and not so much about odd environments displaying it improperly.
What bothers is not so much wether or not the dress is black and blue or gold and white, but rather, the willingness of many to argue so vehemently for or against it. Had the original product image not been found, it would have been perfectly fine to just say "I don't know" - because there was indeed no way to know, considering how overexposed the picture was.
THIS SO MUCH THIS.
I don't know, seems to be something very few people on the internet are comfortable with saying.
I started the day seeing it as white and gold and couldnt belive people saw it as blue and black. I initially thought it might be to do with the side of the brain or some shit.
Anyway, took it into photoshop and played with the curves for a while to make it blue and black. Weird thing is when I reset the image it was now clearly blue and black. 30mins later I came back to the image and it was white and gold again.
I can make it go from white and gold to blue and black using the curves trick but I cant get my eye to adjust back to white and gold so easy.
I find it odd that a bunch of artists think this is some kind of BS internet trolling. Interests me a lot as I deal with colour theory every day....
a) There is no black in the image, any way you slice it. Colour picker will prove it.
b) It will appear darker on certain monitors or view angles (old/cheap/badly calibrated TFTs?), thus the blueish-violet tint will look more intensely blueish.
c) The dress probably looks different in real life under a white light source than it appears in the photo. That might be due to cheap phone camera, strong lighting of the object, all kinds of things.
d) It might appear different after looking at a bright object/white page for a while.
e) People don't know how to describe colours correctly. A lot of people will call a pale violet "blue" and a desaturated orange "gold".
f) Our brain attempts to calculate tinted shadows, or what appears to be one, out of the image to get at the underlying colour, thus a lot of people arrive at "white."
g) If someone were painting the dress using the photo as a source, they would have to paint it as pale blueish violet and desaturated brownish orange because that's how it appears.
h) The dress is likely made of a highly reflective material, so it would appear differently under varied lighting conditions.
If I had to hand paint a white and gold dress that's how I'd paint it. I'm on a color calibrated IPS monitor viewing this through chrome although it looks the same on Firefox and IE.
Do people see this piece I did as a black eagle on a blue background?
To my eyes it looks white (with a slight blue cast) and gold. So, I took the photo into Adobe Camera Raw and underexposed it by 2 stops and added some blue in the color balance and the dress looked black and blue. It's just a terrible photo that makes the dress look different than it really is.
My first thoughts when I saw this: are the blue and black people looking at this on un calibrated screens, are they just unartistic rubes who can't differentiate between colors? is there something wrong with my screen, am I a bad artist? OH MY GOD DO I HAVE A BRAIN TUMOR!?
It's just a bad ****ing photo that allows the mind to do a lot of the clean up and see whatever colours it wants to see, focus on your ability to shift the colours while you look at it, it's not that hard.
so it's an optical illusion only some people can see? I'm screwing my eyes up and trying as hard as I can, I don't see blue & black.
I've never had a lead or art director disagree with how I paint textures so I guess not being susceptible to this illusion doesn't have any impact on my artistic abilities.
so it's an optical illusion only some people can see? I'm screwing my eyes up and trying as hard as I can, I don't see blue & black.
I've never had a lead or art director disagree with how I paint textures so I guess not being susceptible to this illusion doesn't have any impact on my artistic abilities.
Yes. I don't know why it works, but it does.
It only changed for me when my mood and surroundings changed, if that helps.
I haven't read the thread yet but why doesn't OP post the original image? Yes this one is edited to gold/white, but the original one is clearly blue and black.
Wtf, did you change the pic? I got home from work and now it's clearly blue and black.
I think what is interesting about this to me is that optical illusions are typically contrived like the ones Muzz posted on page 1, it's unusual to see something this apparent in a photograph.
so it's an optical illusion only some people can see? I'm screwing my eyes up and trying as hard as I can, I don't see blue & black.
I've never had a lead or art director disagree with how I paint textures so I guess not being susceptible to this illusion doesn't have any impact on my artistic abilities.
I could see gold at first, but then I looked at the gif and it obvious that this is blue and black dress.
I'm aware the actual dress in question is blue and black but the image causing all the fuss is white and gold. I see the gif switching between blue & black and white and gold. I can easily make the spinning girl gif switch directions, and see other optical illusions.
Messing with the levels in photoshop doesn't accomplish squat.
I can tell you first hand that it does. Changing the image actually adjusts your eyes. So that you see the image as blue and black. If you dont see the white and gold your eyes are already adjusted.
Anyhoo, Its to do with cones and rods in the eyes. nothing to do with monitors, lighting or surroundings...
I don't have any sources (as it got to me as just a word of mouth), although I heard that someone already decided to go and find that dress. After finding it, turned out that the dress was black and blue and author just inverted colors on that dress.
Sounds believable (as i can't see any optical illusions in there too), but again I have no proofs.
I think the reason it works is that there is no background to get a visual clue for the colour of the lighting. If you put the same dress into two different backgrounds, one with a white colour that wasn't overexposed, and another with an orange tint then the illusion would be more apparent.
If I had to hand paint a white and gold dress that's how I'd paint it. I'm on a color calibrated IPS monitor viewing this through chrome although it looks the same on Firefox and IE.
Do people see this piece I did as a black eagle on a blue background?
This is absolutely the first thing that I thought of when i saw the dress.
If i painted something that looked like the image, ie White and Gold (Not LITERALLY you assholes but close enough to generalise), would someone all of a sudden say, awesome blue and black emblem bro!
No they wouldn't.
I can easily take a picture of my curtains, install a blue light in my room and ask people what the color of my curtains are, and they'd be like, Blue. And I would love to be like, sorry sucker!! they are ACTUALLY a light sandy brown.
And im sure they would be like, well your an ass, im just saying what colors are on the damn image.
Whose the tard? Me for being a troll, or the person for not thinking of all the possible scenarios or neither?
seriously, how do people make it change color? how ever I view it, changed contrast, look at a white screen or a black screen, its always light blue and a brownish gold, pretty much like the Photoshop color picker suggest
Eh, you'll probably never see it the other way. Before I even read anything about it, i saw the picture, thought it was white, then read the comment of how different people saw it differently, scrolled up, saw it as blue, and haven't been able to see it any differently since. I mean, in the photo the colors are objectively blueish and a darkish brown because of the lighting, it just depend son how your brain interprets that.
I mean, in the photo the colors are objectively blueish and a darkish brown because of the lighting, it just depend son how your brain interprets that.
well my brain interprets just exaclty like that, blue and brown :poly118:
I too have some doubts when some people claim that they suddenly see it as a black and blue (= the actual local colors) since the photo is nowhere near suggesting that (see the eagle example above). It sounds a lot more like an odd group reaction to the product pictures being finally revealed, because I doubt that anyone has the ability to adjust value levels so aggressively just "in their head." From white to bright blue, sure ; but all the way to deep, dark, saturated blue ? Not sure about that.
What's funny too is that the cartoon above doesn't have much to do with the "illusion" at play here either (unless we are talking about the bright blue/white confusion, but that's a secondary thing really. Or is that what we are actually talking about ? I don't know anymore haha). I'd say that the dress not looking like its actual dark colors is not so much about relative color perception, and more about bad exposure and white balance. I am actually surprised that any phone would take such a picture, since tapping on the screen causes focus, white balance and to some extent exposure to be based on the subject of interest (on iPhone at least). What a shitty phone this person has !
While I do find the discussion interesting, it also makes me realize that 99% of people might be missing on all of the cool, beautiful stuff that's all over the place out there. It's kind of sad in a way...
seriously, how do people make it change color? how ever I view it, changed contrast, look at a white screen or a black screen, its always light blue and a brownish gold, pretty much like the Photoshop color picker suggest
I wanna have fun and be confused to!
I'd say try looking at the background. Once you understand the photo was taken in front of a mirror it's probably easier to orient where the lightsource is.
Very interesting (to me anyway) picture that even in the absence of surrounding it with dark blue, people can still see something similar to the relative color effect.
seriously, how do people make it change color? how ever I view it, changed contrast, look at a white screen or a black screen, its always light blue and a brownish gold, pretty much like the Photoshop color picker suggest
I wanna have fun and be confused to!
The way I was able to see both is to take the pic into photoshop and bring the rgb curve down till its obviously blue and black. Keep moving the curve around to adjust your eyes. Reset the curve. The dress should now be blue and black.
30mins after i did this I was able to see it as white and gold again for a while. But for the rest of the day it has been blue and black.
I'm thinking its related to our eyes adjusting to light through out the day. So, i'm hoping tomorrow morning when my eyes are rested i should be able to see white and gold again.
Btw, i dont think its possible to force your eyes to see white and gold.
Replies
Yeah, that too.
I 100% agree that it is interesting - photography and color perceptions are fascinating subjects. The thing that bothers my is the whole OMG reaction to it, but I guess that's the internet right there ...
On a funny nope, I really hope that the manufacturer of the dress will eventually produce a white and gold version of it
I'm saying the exact same version of the image looks clearly different depending on the screen. Most of the debate is down to people seeing things differently on the same screen. And my phone isn't overly dark, it's actually brighter than my other screens, also the image is same at all angles. The only main difference between these screens is the calibration.
Some web hosting image services are wonky in that regard too, converting files on the fly. And then other things happen if the file is stripped of its profile altogether, which I suppose is very likely to happen with cheap cameras like the one being used here.
But I do believe that the whole discussion is about the image when displayed "properly" (overexposed, with the pixels of the black parts being locally represented as brown/gold), and not so much about odd environments displaying it improperly.
I don't know, seems to be something very few people on the internet are comfortable with saying.
Definitely blue balls
I started the day seeing it as white and gold and couldnt belive people saw it as blue and black. I initially thought it might be to do with the side of the brain or some shit.
Anyway, took it into photoshop and played with the curves for a while to make it blue and black. Weird thing is when I reset the image it was now clearly blue and black. 30mins later I came back to the image and it was white and gold again.
I can make it go from white and gold to blue and black using the curves trick but I cant get my eye to adjust back to white and gold so easy.
I find it odd that a bunch of artists think this is some kind of BS internet trolling. Interests me a lot as I deal with colour theory every day....
hey ho.
b) It will appear darker on certain monitors or view angles (old/cheap/badly calibrated TFTs?), thus the blueish-violet tint will look more intensely blueish.
c) The dress probably looks different in real life under a white light source than it appears in the photo. That might be due to cheap phone camera, strong lighting of the object, all kinds of things.
d) It might appear different after looking at a bright object/white page for a while.
e) People don't know how to describe colours correctly. A lot of people will call a pale violet "blue" and a desaturated orange "gold".
f) Our brain attempts to calculate tinted shadows, or what appears to be one, out of the image to get at the underlying colour, thus a lot of people arrive at "white."
g) If someone were painting the dress using the photo as a source, they would have to paint it as pale blueish violet and desaturated brownish orange because that's how it appears.
h) The dress is likely made of a highly reflective material, so it would appear differently under varied lighting conditions.
Do people see this piece I did as a black eagle on a blue background?
It's an optical illusion that makes it look drastically different for no goddamn reason.
Messing with the levels in photoshop doesn't accomplish squat.
My first thoughts when I saw this: are the blue and black people looking at this on un calibrated screens, are they just unartistic rubes who can't differentiate between colors? is there something wrong with my screen, am I a bad artist? OH MY GOD DO I HAVE A BRAIN TUMOR!?
so it's an optical illusion only some people can see? I'm screwing my eyes up and trying as hard as I can, I don't see blue & black.
I've never had a lead or art director disagree with how I paint textures so I guess not being susceptible to this illusion doesn't have any impact on my artistic abilities.
Yes. I don't know why it works, but it does.
It only changed for me when my mood and surroundings changed, if that helps.
Try looking at this gif for more than 2 minutes http://i.4cdn.org/ic/1425017117968.gif
I could see gold at first, but then I looked at the gif and it obvious that this is blue and black dress.
I'm aware the actual dress in question is blue and black but the image causing all the fuss is white and gold. I see the gif switching between blue & black and white and gold. I can easily make the spinning girl gif switch directions, and see other optical illusions.
I can tell you first hand that it does. Changing the image actually adjusts your eyes. So that you see the image as blue and black. If you dont see the white and gold your eyes are already adjusted.
Anyhoo, Its to do with cones and rods in the eyes. nothing to do with monitors, lighting or surroundings...
are those particular shades of white & gold trouble areas I should avoid in textures like designing for color blindness?
Sounds believable (as i can't see any optical illusions in there too), but again I have no proofs.
Cool stuff.
Just glad that none of my friend haven't caught on about this so they don't bother me by sharing this thing all over my social media.
http://xkcd.com/1492/
This is absolutely the first thing that I thought of when i saw the dress.
If i painted something that looked like the image, ie White and Gold (Not LITERALLY you assholes but close enough to generalise), would someone all of a sudden say, awesome blue and black emblem bro!
No they wouldn't.
I can easily take a picture of my curtains, install a blue light in my room and ask people what the color of my curtains are, and they'd be like, Blue. And I would love to be like, sorry sucker!! they are ACTUALLY a light sandy brown.
And im sure they would be like, well your an ass, im just saying what colors are on the damn image.
Whose the tard? Me for being a troll, or the person for not thinking of all the possible scenarios or neither?
Too fucking right. Give me more llamas.
I wanna have fun and be confused to!
well my brain interprets just exaclty like that, blue and brown :poly118:
I too have some doubts when some people claim that they suddenly see it as a black and blue (= the actual local colors) since the photo is nowhere near suggesting that (see the eagle example above). It sounds a lot more like an odd group reaction to the product pictures being finally revealed, because I doubt that anyone has the ability to adjust value levels so aggressively just "in their head." From white to bright blue, sure ; but all the way to deep, dark, saturated blue ? Not sure about that.
What's funny too is that the cartoon above doesn't have much to do with the "illusion" at play here either (unless we are talking about the bright blue/white confusion, but that's a secondary thing really. Or is that what we are actually talking about ? I don't know anymore haha). I'd say that the dress not looking like its actual dark colors is not so much about relative color perception, and more about bad exposure and white balance. I am actually surprised that any phone would take such a picture, since tapping on the screen causes focus, white balance and to some extent exposure to be based on the subject of interest (on iPhone at least). What a shitty phone this person has !
While I do find the discussion interesting, it also makes me realize that 99% of people might be missing on all of the cool, beautiful stuff that's all over the place out there. It's kind of sad in a way...
Very interesting (to me anyway) picture that even in the absence of surrounding it with dark blue, people can still see something similar to the relative color effect.
The way I was able to see both is to take the pic into photoshop and bring the rgb curve down till its obviously blue and black. Keep moving the curve around to adjust your eyes. Reset the curve. The dress should now be blue and black.
30mins after i did this I was able to see it as white and gold again for a while. But for the rest of the day it has been blue and black.
I'm thinking its related to our eyes adjusting to light through out the day. So, i'm hoping tomorrow morning when my eyes are rested i should be able to see white and gold again.
Btw, i dont think its possible to force your eyes to see white and gold.
Yup, I think this nailed it. I had a go at it but... i'm a coder, not an artist
Oh internet... *facepalm*