I appreciate your answer. But aren’t you just in my camp, maybe? If some people in the blue/black camp see a yellowish brown, why do they call it black? And why do they insist it’s the only way the image could be interpreted?
What struck me about the whole thing was how people seemingly could not fathom how the colors could be seen as anything other than what they personally saw/interpreted. Were some of them exaggerating, do you think?
No, I don’t think people were exaggerating. It’s a very weird optical illusion that branches to different outcomes for people. I was only ever able to see the white/yellow once by looking at it upside down and slowly revealing more of the dress from the bottom. Other illusions like that spinning ballerina are easier to flip in your mind or at least understand why people see it the other way. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinning_dancer
But I just wouldn’t call that black. Because… it isn’t. The color is sort of muddy and brownish. So I don’t understand why everyone in ‘my’ camp insist on calling it black and nothing else, if that is really what they also see. Especially when there’s a whole bunch of other people calling the same color yellow gold. Anyway, I think some things about this will remain mysterious to me.
Because your eyes can adjust the image one of two directions, lighter or darker. It’s just that the people started saying “blue and black” before/more often than “blue and dark brown” or something. Plus it’s just easier to say.
So the colors in the image are 100% light blue and brown. However, the brown is the same brown as faded black clothing. Given the context clues of that faded black color, the faded blue color, and the lighting situation in the background, it can be inferred that the dress is a blue and black dress under harsh warm light. I don’t think anyone has ever seen a deep black or blue in the image, I think it’s just some people’s brains are better at picking up the signs of hash warm light than others.
I have never been able to see that colors as gold/white, because the background doesn’t imply that the lighting would tint the white that blue. It would be pretty complicated a setup to get the background to look like that while the foreground is both shaded and hit by cool bounce lighting. Whereas it’s easy to imagine it as a room that has a lot of morning/afternoon sunlight coming in a window.
By saying that you see brown and definitely not black suggests that you are also unable to pick up the details that reveal the lighting situation.
I appreciate your answer. But aren’t you just in my camp, maybe? If some people in the blue/black camp see a yellowish brown, why do they call it black? And why do they insist it’s the only way the image could be interpreted?
What struck me about the whole thing was how people seemingly could not fathom how the colors could be seen as anything other than what they personally saw/interpreted. Were some of them exaggerating, do you think?
Because we’re used to seeing badly backlit photos and our brain processes that as “black under different light”?
Yeah, the blue/black camp.
No, I don’t think people were exaggerating. It’s a very weird optical illusion that branches to different outcomes for people. I was only ever able to see the white/yellow once by looking at it upside down and slowly revealing more of the dress from the bottom. Other illusions like that spinning ballerina are easier to flip in your mind or at least understand why people see it the other way. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinning_dancer
But I just wouldn’t call that black. Because… it isn’t. The color is sort of muddy and brownish. So I don’t understand why everyone in ‘my’ camp insist on calling it black and nothing else, if that is really what they also see. Especially when there’s a whole bunch of other people calling the same color
yellowgold. Anyway, I think some things about this will remain mysterious to me.Because your eyes can adjust the image one of two directions, lighter or darker. It’s just that the people started saying “blue and black” before/more often than “blue and dark brown” or something. Plus it’s just easier to say.
So the colors in the image are 100% light blue and brown. However, the brown is the same brown as faded black clothing. Given the context clues of that faded black color, the faded blue color, and the lighting situation in the background, it can be inferred that the dress is a blue and black dress under harsh warm light. I don’t think anyone has ever seen a deep black or blue in the image, I think it’s just some people’s brains are better at picking up the signs of hash warm light than others.
I have never been able to see that colors as gold/white, because the background doesn’t imply that the lighting would tint the white that blue. It would be pretty complicated a setup to get the background to look like that while the foreground is both shaded and hit by cool bounce lighting. Whereas it’s easy to imagine it as a room that has a lot of morning/afternoon sunlight coming in a window.
By saying that you see brown and definitely not black suggests that you are also unable to pick up the details that reveal the lighting situation.