That’s cause it’s been color corrected to remove the harsh lighting.
How your brain looked at the bright ass room and decided to look at the dress like it was dimly lit still makes no sense to me, but this is why people called those seeing white and gold as crazy.
ratel@mander.xyz 13 hours ago
If you look at the orginal on wikipedia the image is much brighter:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_dress
Octagon9561@lemmy.ml 5 hours ago
Blue and black, was never able to see white and gold no matter how hard I tried
hOrni@lemmy.world 12 hours ago
I remember, that I was able to understand people, who saw it as white and gold, but now I can’t. I just see black and blue. I don’t even know which parts are supposed to be gold.
NarrativeBear@lemmy.world 7 hours ago
The black part is gold, the blue part is white. The wiki image is the original and its easier (at least to me) to jump between the two different colour combinations.
It help to look at the edge of the sleeve on the left, without focusing on the rest of the dress its self. This causes the colours to swap back and forth for me.
mouse@piefed.world 13 hours ago
Wait… It was actually white and gold the whole time? I never saw it as white and gold
Emotional_Engi@lemmy.zip 13 hours ago
No?
SlurpingPus@lemmy.world 2 hours ago
To illustrate:
(I didn’t expect such deep blue. Guess the exposure on the camera was ridiculously out of whack.)
Image
Slab_Bulkhead@lemmy.world 13 hours ago
the photo yes but not the dress itself, take the og photo from the wiki into any photoshop with a color picker, and look at the points it marks it on the color range (it shows it between yellow and red nowhere near any blue) its gold stripes in the photo. the “white dress” parts do show up with light blue tint, it all just because of the terrible back light overexposed effect. the real dress yes is blue and black, but the photo is gold stripes with light-blueish white dress.
Klear@quokk.au 13 hours ago
I wouldn’t call this “nowhere near blue":
4QllEeY8KqBBfGI.png