|
My favorite part is the first several posts are people talking about how they don't care. I think the whole thing's a super cool look into the brain's internal white balancing abilities. It's really rad how our brains can change our perception without us even registering it. I wonder how many things there are like this without us realizing.
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2015 22:18
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 19:33 |
|
|
coleman francis posted:can someone please explain what the heck is going on Lady took the shittiest picture in the world of a blue dress with black lace. The picture is so unbelievably garbage, some people's brains invent a explanation for why it looks so lovely, and in doing so unconsciously white-balances and color-corrects the image to fit that explanation, resulting in the viewer believing it is a picture of a white dress with gold lace. With some mental effort, the viewer could correct their brain's initial color-correction and like magic (or more precisely, like the optical illusion it is) see the dress for what it is: black, blue, and hideously unflattering. edit: because she posted it on the internet, people also have to fight about it a lot Rat Patrol has a new favorite as of 22:41 on Feb 27, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2015 22:36
|
|
|
EL BROMANCE posted:Exactly, do the people moaning think that it's the physical dress that's the talking point? I know everyone is posting about it and it can get run into the ground, but it's super interesting due to how divisive it is. You see it one way and cannot fathom how people are disagreeing with you. I'm kind of curious to know the age ranges of the people whose brains do and don't take the image at face value. It may make no difference at all, but I kind of wonder if people who grew up familiar with, say, polaroids, whose brains are accustomed to, or at the very least somewhat experienced with, compensating for lovely exposure or faded photos, might be the ones seeing the white/gold initially, and those who are used to most photos they take being generally correct are the ones who take it at face value as blue/black.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2015 22:39
|
|
|
Ruzihm posted:It could possibly be an indicator of what kind of light (esp color temperature) you interact with more on a regular basis. Yeah I think you're right about that, or at least that makes more sense. It's hard to make a guess when it's your own eyes lying to you!
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2015 22:50
|
|
|
Gabriel Pope posted:At face value it's blue/gold, I have no idea how people are managing to get "black." Well you see, quote:I mean, I can tell it's a phenomenally lovely and overexposed photo and intellectually I can understand how it started out as black That, basically. Once people are able to figure out what's actually going on in the photo, it's obviously black in real life even if it's not true black in the photograph, so they call it black. For instance:  That dog clearly has a white face in real life, so even though the white balance was off in the camera that took it you'd probably call it a black and white dog even though in the photo it's blue.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2015 00:05
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 19:33 |
|
|
beato posted:I booted up Photoshop and used the colour picker to determine this once and for all. 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2015 00:27
|
|
