RejZoR

For the millionth time, the camera perceived it that way, not a human eye.

Considering they are starting another war in middle east, I don't think they'll need shaving where they are going...

But they have "reasoning" models!

Why is she painted as the bad guy now that Donald Trump is fucking everything up? Trump went and bombed Iran, not Kamala. Why the fuck are they talking about Kamala now?

If they were asking about actual color of the dress that you cannot see, what the fuck is the point? That's like saying, we put orange cat in fully closed box. What color is the cat? And you then claim it's not orange, it's black because there is no light inside the fully closed box so the cat is actually black. That's the level of stupid argument with this stupid ass dress.

I can also shoot a white dress to look entirely blue because I'm gonna use cool white light at 9000 fucking Kelvins and fuck up the cameras white balance to make shit look anything but its actual color. I can also take a normal photo and then just drag some sliders in photo editor and fuck up colors and then ask some bullshit question about colors and then go like "well, achtually it's not that color".

It's also funny when people argue it's not actually white because color picker says it's light blue. Firstly, color motherfucking temperature. Secondly, open color wheel and see where it's positioned. It's in the white segment mildly nudging towards blue. The part where I'm not gonna argue is perception of gradients. This isn't "this gold color is actually black bullshit", but actual science where people perceive correct colors differently. For someone a certain gradient of red is perceived as lighter or darker compared to someone else. But certainly isn't perceived as green. Or black. Or whatever other basic color.

This person doesn't understand pixels lol. You picked one pixel. Pick 100 of them and average them. It's in the white spectrum with a slight shade of blue hue. If you look at it on the color wheel, it's well within white segment slightly towards the blue. When you zoom out of single pixels, it's white that you get under cool white light. It's still considered white.

As for gold, computer screens do not display gold in specular way how you see it with eyes.When you pick pixels, they will be in range of brown. Again, you don't seem to underetand pixels. And ultimately, this is suppose to be black, remember? Where's the black?

The "after" photos of a dress show dark blue with black lace details because it was not captured in bullshit lighting. Where is that on the picked pixels? Just like years ago we are once again arguing over bullshit doctored/manipulated/bad photo of a dress arguing what color it is. It's beyond stupid and I can't believe people are still this dumb to argue about colors that aren't even there. I don't care how dress actually looks, you showed me the photo of it and you're asking me how the dress looks like on the photo, not in reality. The rest is within the color picker which is mathematical representation of colors that doesn't give a shit how eyes work. And it picks very faint blue and brown (thats perceived by eyes as white and gold). Not dark blue and black.

It's funny how people will keep barking about it even when you slap them in the face with color picker which is mathematical display of the color. There is no "how brain is seeing things". It's literally WHAT THE COLOR IS. To call white with faint blue tint "blue" and what is clearly a "gold" shade can't possibly be black. If photo was heavily manipulated through photo editing or lighting, that doesn't prove anything at all. Or the question was stupid. No one was really asking "what color is the dress", they were asking what colors are on the photo. And photo has no relation to the real dress because of light conditions manipulation or even photo editing.

Photoshop's color picker disagrees with you...

Colors do not just magically flip, not outside of gradient variances and medical conditions. This is absurd bs just like this whole "viral" debate where people were arguing over how camera captured the stupid dress. The camera captured it in that stupid way to look entirely different, not my eyes. Even color picker in image editor proves that on the photo of the dress, the gold is gold and the white is so far washed out blue that can easily be declared white. Are you going to claim mathematical tool has wrong perception of color too?

Can this motherfucker just... like... fucking die already?

You mean which color camera perceived when the photo was taken?

The whole argument around it is not how we perceive it but how camera perceived it in a flawed lighting condition.

That's like taking a shitty 2 Mpix photo with a potato from 2003 and truncate it to 8 bits and then claim broccoli is fucking blue because the camera had no fucking concept of a tone mapping or color temperature and captured it as blue.

Also if you put color picker on it it'll be in the white spectrum and barely register a mild hint of blue. And if the dress was blue, then you're one shitty ass photographer and has nothing to do with our actual eyes. You can make a blue dress look almost white. Anyone who ever had aquarium with beautiful metallic blue fish and used wrong lighting and turned them into bland beige silver color will know what I'm talking about.