Other: The dress. black or blue, subjective color temperature.

[Publimix]

Interesting article, are your viewers night people or morning people, it might matter.



http://jov.arvojournals.org/Article.aspx?articleid=2617976


Abstract
There has been considerable interest in a stimulus (“the dress”) that yields starkly divergent subjective color percepts between observers. It has been proposed that individual differences in the subjective interpretation of this stimulus are due to the different assumptions that individuals make about how the dress was illuminated. In this study, we address this possible explanation empirically by reporting on data from ∼13,000 observers who were surveyed online. We show that assumptions about the illumination of the dress—i.e., whether the stimulus was illuminated by natural or artificial light or whether it was in a shadow—strongly affects the subjective interpretation of observers, compared to demographic factors, such as age or gender, which have a relatively smaller influence. We interpret these findings in a Bayesian framework by also showing that prior exposure to long- or short-wavelength lights due to circadian type shapes the subjective experience of the dress stimulus in theoretically expected ways.

 

[Josh Bass]

I remember this whole thing. So stupid. But if I recall, people were also, at least part of the time, disagreeing about what ACTUAL COLORS the dress had in the photo (a separate distinction from the actual color of the dress). Meaning we don't all see "blue" or "black" or "white" as the same thing. I mean I guess I already knew that, I just didn't know how different people's perceptions could be. Hopefully I actually explained what I mean, there.

 

[Publimix]

"We believe we showed that differential assumptions about illumination account for a large part of the individual differences we see in subjective color experiences of the dress stimulus between observers."

Fun fact: the same for taste. White wine with red color will be tasted like red wine.

You don't see or taste what you see, but what you expect to see.

 

[Razz16mm]

We see with the brain, the visual cortex. The eyes are just our sensors.
Dr. Zemir Zecki, a neurological researcher at London College has mapped the visual cortex in finer detail than anyone. Among his most significant discoveries are that the aesthetic concepts of beauty, ugliness, and the sublime as described by the philospher Emmanuel Kant are actually genetically programmed into specific areas of the visual cortex. They are universal to all humans regardless of race, culture, origin, or education.

 

[Barry_Green]

That whole craze was, well, insane. People looked at the same picture and saw two wildly different interpretations, some claiming it was black and blue, the others saying it was gold and white.

Here's what I found most fascinating about it:
1) The picture is unquestionably, without a doubt, provably white and gold. It doesn't matter if your eyes tell you it's blue and black, the facts are that the picture is white and gold. Take it into Photoshop and sample the colors -- the upper right wide swatch of "gold" reads as R125/G110/B71. It's not blue, in fact the color that is represented the least in it is blue. And the "white" bands and the right sleeve? Photoshop reads it as R143/G152/B171. A gray with a slight blue tint. Neither of these colors is in any way a deep rich blue or black.

2) The dress itself is unquestionably, provably blue and black. It was made by Roman Originals, and it experienced a surge in sales. In fact, Roman Originals produced a white/gold special edition version of it after the fact as a charity campaign.

So what I don't get is:
a) why do people see this picture as blue/black when the picture is definitively white/gold? Photoshop's color sampling doesn't lie.
b) How did the camera screw it up so badly that it imaged a blue/black image as white/gold? This seems impossible to me. I don't think I could mess up white balance settings bad enough to turn blue into either white or gold...
c) How on earth were people able to "divine" the original blue/black colors from a clearly white/gold misrepresentation?

 

[Publimix]

That whole craze was, well, insane. People looked at the same picture and saw two wildly different interpretations, some claiming it was black and blue, the others saying it was gold and white.

Here's what I found most fascinating about it:
1) The picture is unquestionably, without a doubt, provably white and gold. It doesn't matter if your eyes tell you it's blue and black, the facts are that the picture is white and gold. Take it into Photoshop and sample the colors -- the upper right wide swatch of "gold" reads as R125/G110/B71. It's not blue, in fact the color that is represented the least in it is blue. And the "white" bands and the right sleeve? Photoshop reads it as R143/G152/B171. A gray with a slight blue tint. Neither of these colors is in any way a deep rich blue or black.

2) The dress itself is unquestionably, provably blue and black. It was made by Roman Originals, and it experienced a surge in sales. In fact, Roman Originals produced a white/gold special edition version of it after the fact as a charity campaign.

So what I don't get is:
a) why do people see this picture as blue/black when the picture is definitively white/gold? Photoshop's color sampling doesn't lie.
b) How did the camera screw it up so badly that it imaged a blue/black image as white/gold? This seems impossible to me. I don't think I could mess up white balance settings bad enough to turn blue into either white or gold...
c) How on earth were people able to "divine" the original blue/black colors from a clearly white/gold misrepresentation?

This is explained in the article. Our mind interprets the color, when assuming it is night you see one picture, assuming it is daylight you see the other. We all have Luts in our heads

the gray bar is solid color.

 

[DLD]

... So what I don't get is:
a) why do people see this picture as blue/black when the picture is definitively white/gold? Photoshop's color sampling doesn't lie.
b) How did the camera screw it up so badly that it imaged a blue/black image as white/gold? This seems impossible to me. I don't think I could mess up white balance settings bad enough to turn blue into either white or gold...
c) How on earth were people able to "divine" the original blue/black colors from a clearly white/gold misrepresentation?

There's always Wikipedia to help you decide ... or confuse you further.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_dress

 

[Grug]

I saw blue and gold...

 

[LennyLevy]

Is this still on the web. I'd like to see it.

 

[nyvz]

So what I don't get is:
a) why do people see this picture as blue/black when the picture is definitively white/gold? Photoshop's color sampling doesn't lie.
b) How did the camera screw it up so badly that it imaged a blue/black image as white/gold? This seems impossible to me. I don't think I could mess up white balance settings bad enough to turn blue into either white or gold...
c) How on earth were people able to "divine" the original blue/black colors from a clearly white/gold misrepresentation?

I think some of the issue is that people were asking the wrong question. "What color is the dress?" "What color is the picture?" are different questions with different answers and the imprecision of language tended to mean some people would ask one question meaning the other and vice versa.

What I find especially interesting is the people who see both the picture and the dress as gold+white and cannot imagine how the dress could be black+blue. Whereas I would tend to think people who see that the dress is black+blue could probably see that the image itself was gold+white. But maybe that's just me projecting my small anecdotal experience though.

I don't know, I saw it as back+blue. I think there is enough overexposed white reference in the image to discern the relative blue tint to the "white" part and when your mind understands that shift and overexposure you can compensate for it in the "gold" shift from black accordingly.

As for the camera, I've seen images like this before from low-DR cameras, just looks like it could be a phone or point-and-shoot set the daylight or maybe even shade whitebalance. I wonder if the original photo is still available somewhere and if there is any EXIF metadata in it...