What Color?

http://www.buzzfeed.com/catesish/he...ely-blue?bffbvid&utm_term=4ldqpj5#.ld20WGMKRx

 

I must be losing my color gene - it looks like light blue with brown fringes.:banghead

 

Yup, and if it's a little under exposed (background looks over exposed=avg. exposure used?), it would closely equate to an off-white+gold under normal lighting.

Either 2 different colour versions of the same dress line are being discussed, or some very trick lighting used (cat/photo back right looks normal, nothing else there to help make a valid comparison).

Use a colour picker tool (I used Colorblind Assistant) and check for yourself.

 

Hmmm....yeah, looked like very pale blue white(ish), with a Gold(ish) pattern, with black trim on the underexposed photo, too me. I have 100% color vision according to the Doc's, lol.
About 1/3, according to some sources, have lacking come Cone Cells in the retina to distinguish red/green, anyway. My father one one of them. So the Army put him in Signals, (Electronics), Core, LoL!.:major I worked for a Colour-blind Optomatrist when I was young, so Meh, it's all relative.

 

I am so lost here.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/02/2...-and-blue-others-as-gold-and/?intcmp=HPBucket

What is the deal? :confused

 

2 different things being discussed, Fred, one being the colour of the dress in real life.

The other being the photograph taken which shows the same dress as a very pale blue/gold.

In rl, apparent colour can alter according to many factors. In a photograph, until tricks like dodging/burning/messing in Photoshop, etc., the image and colour is 'fixed' as defined by the light falling on the item at the time. When viewing the photo, only the light falling on the photo changes.

In computer viewing a digital image there are other factors, any filters in the screen, screen materials, calibration, etc.

If the same person looks at the photo of the pale dress that has seen the original item in the flesh - the blue/black number - only a very small minority, I'd guess at way less than 2% of them, would see the blue/black dress and the photo in the OP as being the same.

Check with the ColorBlind Assistant software, it rules out human visual defects and gives you a 'real' colour in the readout: http://littlesky.org/?q=apps



Does a birder with defective colour vision see a radically differently coloured bird in real life, compared to that same species illustrated in the accurate field guide, painted by someone with perfect vision, that he carries in his pocket for reference?

No.

 

My friends and I just had this discussion. There were 10 of us; 8 said the dress was whiteish/pale blueish and gold, and 2 said black and blue.

I can understand the blue but I don't see anyone can see black?

 

Some of your friends already knew that the dress in question was in reality blue/black, Dy?

 

It's entirely about backlighting, ambient lighting, and thusly color rendition. If you turn the dress around and face it into full sunlight it would be white and gold.

It's really one of the most absurd things I've seen in a while...

 

As I implied in #10, David, I suspect some people have based their responses on previous knowledge rather than on what they actually see in that photograph.

There was somewhere around a 25/75 split in the poll during the early stages, assuming 'some' respondents have a colour deficiency (3 basic types over an avg. ~7% of the populace?) disregard 3% of the 'wrong' - black selection - respondents.

Still leaves a big chunk of ~22% unaccounted for.

Now consider the frequency of social media use, especially in the topic area (female fashion) ...

 

Time for a change? https://www.facebook.com/majorgeeks...43306.161472400537054/946812742003012/?type=1

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moX3z2RJAV8

 

I posted it a few minutes after I found out and despite some theories here, didn't read the poll or comments until the next day.


I saw Blue and charcoal. My two coworkers saw white and gold.

The next morning, I saw white with a slight blue tint and gold.


So it also has to do with how tired you are. I had pulled a 13 hour shift the first time I saw it.

 

Blue and Black.... that's what I am seeing.

 

Yeah, colour is relative. The G/F. keeps insisting my blue cars are green, my Burgundy car is red and pink is brown, no! I don't have a pink car!... And everyone I ask falls in different camps, just like the dress. - Aint that a coincidence, lol!
I realized how relative colour was when back when I was Nursing, a blind patient asked me to describe what a Rainbow looks like - and I couldn't answer him.

 

"That's periwinkle with a gold lace trim."
LauraR wins as the MajorGeeks fashionista.:major
Probably knows who Emily Post is too.:-o

 

They didn't mention they did but I guess it's possible. Maybe they just have better eyes. :-D

 

Well 'see' for yourself if you have Red/Green Colorblindness.



But, as said, the dress was massively over-back-lighted, so it will appear different, purely due to photo and lighting effects.

 

If I can see the numbers in the left image, does that mean I do not suffer from colour blindness?

The image in the link provided by Adrynalyne, I see 'dirty' gold & pale blue. I sent the image to my 74 year old mom. She sees 'old' gold & grey blue.

Also, is everyone looking at the same image? Look at the image on MajorGeeks. I see dark grey & blue (left image), and white & gold (right image, which is the negative of the left image).

 

There was a poll on this photo that showed around 25% reporting it as blue/black. Aside from a few small nations (Finland and some remote Pacific island populations spring to mind), colour blindness affects around 7% of the male population and less than 1% of females last time I checked.

The original trigger did seem to arise in/around an island population, which might have boosted their reports to say ~12% but that figure would have been diluted rapidly by the widespread response across social media respondents.

Light falling on computer/smartphone screens might affect how we see certain colours, especially when adjacent to complementary/clashing colours, also the filters built into the screens - checkout how different a movie looks on a matte screen compared to a gloss one, matte - more natural, gloss - vivid/vibrant.

There were also reports of people being able to see the 'wrong' colours, but only after twisting their 'phones/monitors to improbable, useless angles - thus the light from the image would have been distorted by the greater amount of screen material and effectively pixel bleed/blurring.

Spectacle/lens wearers may also have their colour vision distorted by the quality of materials and coatings used.

But, we've had Photoshop around for 25 years now, and this is the first such photo that's hit the headlines as being some kind of new phenomenon - feels like social media is turning some folks into 'dishonest cheats', afraid to be seen as 'wrong' or 'imperfect'.

Not sure about the tiredness factor, Adry; outside of a controlled/artificial environment, natural lighting changes would play a part during a normal shift, more so the longer that shift extends to.

 

That could be. 10am in the morning is a little different than 8:30 at night.

 

Well, a classic case of the photo being different colors than the actual item.

On a side note, both versions of the dress can be purchased on TinyDeal, with other accessories available as well. Didn't take too long for the "wholesale artists" to get in on it, huh?