Also see it as blue and brownish-goldish black. But I think that it is actually black and looks brownish-goldish due to flash from the camera.
Another article says that it could be even blue and orange! But, again, I think it has to do with the picture not being taken in the natural light, and including flash. The Wired people also propose an interesting explanation. Not sure if it is in any way valid.
Another article says that it could be even blue and orange! But, again, I think it has to do with the picture not being taken in the natural light, and including flash. The Wired people also propose an interesting explanation. Not sure if it is in any way valid.
Even WIRED’s own photo team—driven briefly into existential spasms of despair by how many of them saw a white-and-gold dress—eventually came around to the contextual, color-constancy explanation. “I initially thought it was white and gold,” says Neil Harris, our senior photo editor. “When I attempted to white-balance the image based on that idea, though, it didn’t make any sense.” He saw blue in the highlights, telling him that the white he was seeing was blue, and the gold was black. And when Harris reversed the process, balancing to the darkest pixel in the image, the dress popped blue and black. “It became clear that the appropriate point in the image to balance from is the black point,” Harris says.
So when context varies, so will people’s visual perception. “Most people will see the blue on the white background as blue,” Conway says. “But on the black background some might see it as white.” He even speculated, perhaps jokingly, that the white-gold prejudice favors the idea of seeing the dress under strong daylight. “I bet night owls are more likely to see it as blue-black,” Conway says.
At least we can all agree on one thing: The people who see the dress as white are utterly, completely wrong.