The upper part appeared goldish because it has the most light hitting it compare to the bottom of the dress.
The bottom of the dress has darker black shades than the top.
and it's clearly light blue shown in the color pallet.
But you're arguing that it's white in that photo-- even though it's not literally white since we have a smooth color sample of it-- but you say it's white with a shadow on it because you know that white takes on other colors due to shadow, because we've all seen pure WHITE before.
We've seen the actual BLUE color of the dress, so we know that lighting causes it to be a lighter color.
You can't say the original color of the dress doesn't matter-- because if none of us had ever seen pure white before, we wouldn't be able to tell that the white-tinged-blue things such as those chairs are actually white with shadows on them.
I've already talked about the inaccuracy of the sample from photoshop, but let's not keep going back and forth on that..
What I want to know is - you're saying it's black and blue just because you know it's black and blue in reality even if in the picture they made it appear white (or light blue - i get that) and gold?
Let's stop I guess. The heart wants what it wants, the eyes see what they see.
take an art course and take a psychology course
you would be able to understand all sides of this debate
at the end of the day...this is the original dress i saw...so even if it was edited and i saw the unedited version...i'm still going to lean towards white and gold (something that is natural)
if you were asked to paint the unedited dress and were only given primary blue and white to do that portion...you would blend them together
I've already talked about the inaccuracy of the sample from photoshop, but let's not keep going back and forth on that..
What I want to know is - you're saying it's black and blue just because you know it's black and blue in reality even if in the picture they made it appear white (or light blue - i get that) and gold?
Let's stop I guess. The heart wants what it wants, the eyes see what they see.
I saw it as black and blue originally, because I have seen previous photos of black appearing a gold-ish color due to exposure, and the blue tint on the dress was too strong to just be a casual shadow.
take an art course and take a psychology course
you would be able to understand all sides of this debate
at the end of the day...this is the original dress i saw...so even if it was edited and i saw the unedited version...i'm still going to lean towards white and gold (something that is natural)
if you were asked to paint the unedited dress and were only given primary blue and white to do that portion...you would blend them together
Regardless of which you saw first, the photo you posted here is edited. The original one is darker, and has been posted in the last few pages.
The upper part appeared goldish because it has the most light hitting it compare to the bottom of the dress.
The bottom of the dress has darker black shades than the top.
and it's clearly light blue shown in the color pallet.
I saw it as black and blue originally, because I have seen previous photos of black appearing a gold-ish color due to exposure, and the blue tint on the dress was too strong to just be a casual shadow.
One time, I was in the womb and I had never seen light or the color white or any other color at all, so I couldn't tell you what color anything was.
Your point that others don't have access to the original photo is irrelevant-- we have the knowledge so we understand what is happening.
Direct samples of the image prove that it's a light blue color.
Previous knowledge of the actual color of the dress proves that the image itself is black and blue with messed up lighting & exposure issues.
The black in the image APPEARS gold in a direct sample, and the blue still appears BLUE in a direct sample.
A single photo, with all other evidence cut out, does not change the fact that it is a particular color.
and if a psychologist were to look at this case...they would not care about what the actual color is...but only the interpretation is and why we got to that conclusion
you really have to look at it from all aspects and it's quite understandable why a lot see it as white and gold
and if a psychologist were to look at this case...they would not care about what the actual color is...but only the interpretation is and why we got to that conclusion
you really have to look at it from all aspects and it's quite understandable why a lot see it as white and gold
I am. I really am trying. But the blue tint, even on the edited picture you posted, is too heavy for it to be the result of a shadow. Besides, the gold looks unnatural due to the consistencies in it's color. Why is the gold color at its lightest at the top of the dress, but the "white" parts remain consistent throughout? It's clear there's a light shining directly on it to create that lightness in the gold, so there is no shadow to tinge a pure-white dress the shadowed-blue.
did you change the pic
