I already knew about this, but my vote remains the same. I disagree that the "right" answer is right. The white is actually a light bluish--sort of a periwinkle. The gold is exactly that--gold, albeit with some sections that are more gray. There is simply no reasonable way to claim that the colors in the picture are a deep royal blue and black.
So, of the two choices, "white and gold" is far closer to what the two colors demonstrably are. One of them is gold NOT black. The other is halfway between white and dark blue. That's what the science shows, regardless of the bizarre interpretations of that science that claim this means "blue and black" is the correct answer.
NOTE: This has nothing to do with what the colors of the physical dress actually are, only with the colors in the picture. I don't doubt that the colors in the picture can have been produced from a dress that, in the sunlight, is blue and black.
Did the picture change? I looked at it earlier and it appeared to be obviously one choice but the second look and it looked to be obviously the other choice. Spoiler
The picture did not change, but I also experienced a swap. This morning at home I saw white and gold, and thought it impossible that anyone could see blue and black. Now, at work, it's clearly blue and black, and impossible that anyone could see white and gold. Not sure if the difference can be chalked up to different computer monitors, other different lighting conditions, or a physiological change over the course of the day.
I too had a reversal. When I first saw it on Facebook, it clearly looked white and gold, but now it clearly looks blue and grey. And no adjustment to monitor brightness changes that for me...
Woof wrote:I too had a reversal. When I first saw it on Facebook, it clearly looked white and gold, but now it clearly looks blue and grey. And no adjustment to monitor brightness changes that for me...
Same for me. I expected it to revert to white/gold after not having seen it for a few hours overnight, but it still looks blue/black and I can't even imagine how I ever saw it as white/gold. Very bizarre. I'd be convinced it's all an elaborate ruse except new people seeing it for the first time still seem to say it's white and gold.
triviawayne wrote:try changing the brightness on your screen while you look at the dress.
I agree that I can force the colors to look black and medium blue by darkening them. I also agree that the "white" part is more blue than it appears to me in the context of the picture. But let me ask you this:
DO THESE LETTERS LOOK BLACK TO YOU?
If so, we really are seeing things differently or seeing different things. Because that's the color of the "black" part of the dress that isn't in shadow according to "the science". Those letters a) look gold to me, and b) look like the color of the "black" part of the dress that most of us see as gold.
The "black" parts of the dress that are in shadow are naturally darker and are more gray than gold. The grayness could theoretically be any of a broad range of colors hidden in shadow. Or it could just be colorless gray. But not black. It makes sense then to interpret that grayness in the context of what's apparently the same color only in better light. And in better light, the color is gold, the color of those big letters up there. Unless we disagree and those letters look black to you. If they do, that's interesting and I'm not sure what it means. (Try brightening your screen? )
Woof wrote:I too had a reversal. When I first saw it on Facebook, it clearly looked white and gold, but now it clearly looks blue and grey. And no adjustment to monitor brightness changes that for me...
Blue and grey is just as close to the truth as white and gold, I think. But royal blue and black, which is what we're told the dress actually is? Nope. Not in that picture. People are invoking "science" to allege the contrary, but the science they're posting doesn't appear to me to support them.
opusthepenguin wrote:
DO THESE LETTERS LOOK BLACK TO YOU?
No, they do not, but there's no way I can look at that dress photo now and not see it as blue and black. I can't explain the phenomenon. Is it because I now know the dress is really blue and black or something else? All I can say with certainty is that when I look at that photo now all I see is a blue and black dress, just as surely as I saw a white and gold dress the very first time I saw it.
Opus, I am confused by your implication that light blue somehow does not count as blue. The blue/green boundary can be vague. The white/yellow boundary can be vague. But blue (even light blue) and white are very distinct and separate colors in my mind.
As for the other color, it looked black to me at first, but after staring at it for while I think it looks more brown - maybe a golden brown, but not true gold. But the blue is certainly blue, unless you have a very loose definition of "white" that somehow includes light blue.
earendel wrote:Looks light blue and brown (not gold) to me.
Same here.
Freethinkers!
Now that you mention it, if we're not stuck with binary choices this is what I see too.
Ditto. This is a really interesting experiment to me because I have a weird, mild form of colorblindness that causes me to have trouble distinguishing some greens, browns, and grays. I had no idea whether others would see this the way I do. To me, the darker color is a generic earthy hue that is sort of a greenish brown or brownish green and the lighter color is indisputably a light blue.