Brain breakage, shoe edition
May 3, 2019 10:31 PM   Subscribe

Remember the blue/black/white/gold dress? Here's another one: what colour is this shoe?
posted by divabat (71 comments total) 5 users marked this as a favorite
 
pink and white, both pictures, one poorly lit, one bright
posted by a humble nudibranch at 10:37 PM on May 3 [33 favorites]


Hm.

Can we say at the outset that there are (at least) two distinct, legitimate ways to interpret colors in a photo?

The first is to assess the actual color of the pixels in the photo. These colors can be explicitly quantified based on their RGB or CMYK values, or whatever.

The second is to interpret the colors in the photo based on the way the viewer maps the content of the photo on their experience of the world, and extrapolating to what they believe the original colors were, regardless of what the pixels specifically depict.
posted by darkstar at 10:39 PM on May 3 [13 favorites]


100% gray/teal; then pink/white..

Human perception is quite the shaky trick, isn't it?
posted by drewbage1847 at 10:46 PM on May 3 [2 favorites]


Can I say "C", all of the above? (Still, I don't think those teal shoelaces exist in nature...)
posted by oneswellfoop at 10:47 PM on May 3


Both are pink and white.
posted by Pyrogenesis at 10:50 PM on May 3 [2 favorites]


papaya mango and tropical mist, zach morris summer love
posted by Foci for Analysis at 11:13 PM on May 3 [7 favorites]


Shoe is obviously pink and white. There's a hand in the picture, and in the first picture it's a greenish-colored hand so obviously the color balance is messed up. I could post a more messed-up version that made it look purple, but what's the point?

If you see the first picture as pink and white, the color balance on your monitor is messed up too.

I'll go ask Yanny and Laurel what they think.
posted by mmoncur at 11:16 PM on May 3 [23 favorites]


I see pink and white in both.
posted by Navelgazer at 11:27 PM on May 3


On the left, I see a picture that needs its white balance adjusted.
posted by Skybly at 11:42 PM on May 3 [14 favorites]


These debates are just a philosophical conflict between Essentialism and Phenomenalism in obfuscated form. If you are an essentialist, you see the shoe as being fundamentally pink and white, and the fact that it is poorly lit is an accidental quality that doesn't affect that essense. If you are a phenomenalist, you understand that the shoe has no color except when it is perceived under particular conditions, and so there are two different pictures: one which is grey and teal, and a second which is pink and white. The essentialists have internalized that philosophy so hard that it changes what they see.
posted by I-Write-Essays at 12:52 AM on May 4 [36 favorites]


I....what? People see this as two pink and white shoes? Do those two pictures look exactly alike to you? To me they are as different as can be. PLEASE I NEED QUALIA
posted by capnsue at 1:09 AM on May 4 [16 favorites]


I've got one word for you, just one word: Predictive Coding
posted by I-Write-Essays at 1:15 AM on May 4 [1 favorite]


Yup, just like the dress - do you see the colour it is now, or adjust it in your mind based upon the bad lighting to what it'd be without? It's like low pressure sodium street lights, you tend to tune out the colour cast and don't even realise until you stop and think about it.

I default to grey, but can see the pink version if I focus on the background first. I wonder if being able to mentally model things as their 'real' colour when in shadow was a help to spot lurking predators.
posted by Absolutely No You-Know-What at 1:47 AM on May 4 [3 favorites]


So apparently some people can adjust photos in their head to compensate for bad color balance or lighting conditions?

I'll add that to the list of things my brain is tragically incapable of. Thanks...
posted by mmoncur at 1:54 AM on May 4 [9 favorites]


> I'll add that to the list of things my brain is tragically incapable of.

Everyone does it, but not everyone agrees on when it's appropriate. Nor does everyone confuse essence with perception, and then can't get past their perceptions to agree on a common set of terms, stubbornly and unreflectively insisting their definitions are right and yours are wrong without even addressing the difference. That's what's really going on here.
posted by I-Write-Essays at 2:01 AM on May 4 [8 favorites]


The fact that it is a photo and not an actual shoe you're holding in your hands in a room suffused with the same ambient color is part of the problem. We aren't looking at a shoe at all.
posted by I-Write-Essays at 2:09 AM on May 4 [5 favorites]


It is notable that these colour confusion issues never cropped up back in the days of film cameras.
That might just be because we all take so many more pictures, but it could also be because film has more accurate colour than digital images.
It can usually be fixed in PhotoShop but many people don't bother and just use an uncorrected out-of-camera image.
posted by Lanark at 2:09 AM on May 4 [1 favorite]


Honestly not seeing the gray or teal. Do the teal/gray people also think the hand holding the shoe is an unnatural skin color? It just looks like pink/white shoe with bad lighting. This is far less ambiguous to me than the dress.
posted by picklenickle at 2:47 AM on May 4 [11 favorites]


The question always asks, "What color is this (shoe)?" They never ask, "What color is the photo of the (shoe)?" So I always assume we're supposed to mentally fix the white balance - easy in this one since there's a human hand for comparison too.
posted by p3t3 at 2:55 AM on May 4 [5 favorites]


An interesting effect. The first time I saw the photos, I did not see the left photo as pink at all. It looked really extremely teal and grey, even though this was obviously a color balance problem. I scrolled down the thread and thought about some pink Vans I'd idly considered buying on eBay, and when I scrolled back up again, the photo looked pink and white, obviously and clearly.

I have to say, I'm kind of into right-hand shoe - I would totally buy shoes with that neon pink and very pale violent.
posted by Frowner at 3:10 AM on May 4 [2 favorites]


It is notable that these colour confusion issues never cropped up back in the days of film cameras.

They put a lot of effort into lighting and make up to make the colors look natural when the film's projected.

When you're snapping photos under random lighting conditions without adjusting the color balance of the images afterwards, it's a different matter.
posted by nangar at 3:39 AM on May 4 [1 favorite]


The dress was unusual because it could look either way in the same image. A shoe looking a different color when it is color corrected versus a weird white balance could literally be any photo of anything with WB changed between the two versions.
posted by snofoam at 3:52 AM on May 4 [11 favorites]


The shoe is gray and teal, just as the dress is blue and black. In both cases, a photoshop eyedropper tool backs me up. I cannot see how some people think it an advantage to see colors that are not really there. Maybe, ideologically, that's another kind of colorblindness.
posted by darksasami at 4:20 AM on May 4 [6 favorites]


I-Write-Essays has sorted this all out for us, I hope they write up these comments in a handy pamphlet I can pass out. Seriously, it’s fun to discuss what we see, but the bigger picture is that nobody is wrong and our brains all do color correcting a little differently.
posted by SaltySalticid at 4:30 AM on May 4 [1 favorite]


It is notable that these colour confusion issues never cropped up back in the days of film cameras.
This is highly wrong but the reason why it might not seem so comes down economics: taking photos wasn’t free and so you were less likely to take them in bad conditions, and photo labs would adjust the development process since there was no way to re-take the original negative.
posted by adamsc at 4:34 AM on May 4 [2 favorites]


The canonical answer is clearly pink/white, though in isolation from pic#2 I can “see” the grey/teal mentioned for pic#1.

What’s important, though, is that it requires experience to know that the canonical answers is correct right away, even when only seeing pic#1. That experience is the fact that shoe trim and laces are almost never produced in anything off-white; if it isn’t white, it *clearly* isn’t white, and in the first pic it isn’t clearly so. Compound that with the fact that pink is a far more likely color than teal for the rest, especially in conjunction with the style.

Interestingly, that context of experience is, I believe, the one thing that was missing in discussion about the dress; while one color set was obviously more likely, it is much more possible to imagine the other colors actually being produced for a dress than it is the other colors for the shoe.
posted by mystyk at 4:35 AM on May 4 [1 favorite]


The clue is the question has the letter "u" in the world "colour." They are theatre puce.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 4:51 AM on May 4 [1 favorite]


An interesting effect. The first time I saw the photos, I did not see the left photo as pink at all. It looked really extremely teal and grey, even though this was obviously a color balance problem. I scrolled down the thread and thought about some pink Vans I'd idly considered buying on eBay, and when I scrolled back up again, the photo looked pink and white, obviously and clearly

Yeah, I looked at the post an hour ago and couldn't see anything other than teal/grey, even though I knew rationally that it was the same shoe as the pink one. Looking again it's like my previous perception has been completely overwritten, and the pink model dominates.

It's basically a real life example of the classic checkerboard illusion, right? Every book on drawing or painting I've ever read tells you that the first skill you have to learn is how to see things as they really are.
posted by rollick at 4:59 AM on May 4 [4 favorites]


"Do the teal/gray people also think the hand holding the shoe is an unnatural skin color?"

Haha, when I first went to the page, I just looked at the two preview photos side by side and didn't even realise there was a hand in the photo.

Yes, I saw it as grey with teal at first, but now I see pink with white in dim lighting and I can't see the grey again.
posted by randomonium at 5:07 AM on May 4 [1 favorite]


There's a hand in the picture, and in the first picture it's a greenish-colored hand so obviously the color balance is messed up.

The interesting effect for me is that if I look at the hand my brain automatically color adjusts the rest of the picture and I see a pink shoe. If I don’t then I see the grey.

A reference point helps a lot.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 5:22 AM on May 4 [4 favorites]


neon pink = band
very pale violent = album
#bandoralbum
posted by otherchaz at 5:27 AM on May 4 [5 favorites]


Eau de nil and Sandstone.
posted by Segundus at 5:33 AM on May 4


It's teal. Because it appears teal. Just like with the dress, the "original" doesn't matter.

If I take someone's brown hair and then bleach it, it's blonde hair. If I take Homer's white shirt and throw in Bart's red cap in the wash, it's a pink shirt.

So too, if I take Heather's pink shoe, and take a poorly calibrated image of it, it's a teal shoe.

The question isn't "what do you believe the shoe looks like in real life?" The question is, "what color is the shoe in this picture?"
posted by explosion at 5:38 AM on May 4 [8 favorites]


What I kinda love about this is that even though we here on MeFi (MEE-fye) are sophisticates who know that there is a difference between perception and fact, and have read the articles about color perception and context... We have really strong meta-opinions about the people who are participating in the original Twitter thread.

Omg I went meta meta
posted by Made of Star Stuff at 5:46 AM on May 4 [3 favorites]


If I take someone's brown hair and then bleach it, it's blonde hair. If I take Homer's white shirt and throw in Bart's red cap in the wash, it's a pink shirt.

So too, if I take Heather's pink shoe, and take a poorly calibrated image of it, it's a teal shoe.


I don’t accept this at all. In your first two examples, the hair is still hair. In the second example, the shirt is still a shirt. But in the third example, the shoe is being compared to an image of a shoe. It is clear that two objects exist — the shoe and its image — and so it’s not ridiculous for someone responding to the question “what color is this shoe?” to take it literally. After all, you’re asking “What color is this shoe?”, not “What color is this photographic representation of a shoe?” A pink-and-white shoe exists, but a grey-and-teal shoe does not.

I’m not saying essentialism is right and phenomenalism is wrong; I just don’t think it’s clear that one is correct and the other is not. Reasonable people can lean both ways, especially when the question is as ambiguous and fundamentally silly as this one is.
posted by Mothlight at 6:08 AM on May 4 [2 favorites]


Photoshop is satisfying as the large image in the work space appears pink and white to me while the thumbnail image in my layers palette appears teal and grey.
posted by Cuke at 6:14 AM on May 4


Omg I went meta meta

Never go full meta meta.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 6:16 AM on May 4 [3 favorites]


I'm here with my daughter, who had never seen the dress before.

We both see the shoe as grey-teal and can't see it any other way. The dress, though, she sees as blue-black and I see as white-gold.
posted by escabeche at 6:18 AM on May 4 [1 favorite]


I cannot see how some people think it an advantage to see colors that are not really there.

So the problem with this statement is, you're assuming people are seeing it another way on purpose.

The small twitter preview of the left image was, to me, undeniably teal and grey. The full sized version is undeniably pink and white, because the hand (which is a key point of reference my brain keys off of) was no longer cropped out. This is not a conscious choice. This is the result of my brain being conditioned by decades of varying colors of artificial light in real life (soft white vs. bright white vs. "daylight" vs. fluorescent vs. tungsten vs. ...) as well as choices in visual media to apply color grading to images.

Like, I can watch The Matrix and know that Switch isn't changing clothes from scene to scene from a white outfit to a slightly green outfit to a slightly brown tinged outfit, etc. She's wearing white. The image doesn't always literally use pure white to reflect that because the color of light and/or color grading in scenes is changing, but my brain follows along using context clues.

So: this isn't really about what color it "really" is, if you pull up an eyedropper in Photoshop. This is fundamentally about how our brains perceive images, and in particular how our brains interpret "wrong" color after years of visual media having trained them to follow along with white balance and color grading choices that are meant to inform tone or mood without being intended to literally mean that the world we're being shown has a permanent color cast to it.
posted by tocts at 6:23 AM on May 4 [8 favorites]


The question isn't "what do you believe the shoe looks like in real life?" The question is, "what color is the shoe in this picture?"

Even if I agreed with this interpretation (which I don’t) that still leaves the problem that the color of the shoe in the first picture changes depending on what part of the picture I’m looking at.

There are purpose built optical illusions that produce the same effect. The answer to the question of color can only be "it depends on how you look at it."
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 6:26 AM on May 4 [2 favorites]


I see pink in both photos. The one on the left looks more like a dusty rose, as opposed to the bright petal pink on the right, but both decidedly pink. I’m guessing a lot of this can be attributed to screen brightness and calibration, since that’s the biggest issue with product images in the first place: companies put a lot of work into getting the most accurate shots of their products, but can’t overcome the variations in the way people’s own devices are set up.

So apparently some people can adjust photos in their head to compensate for bad color balance or lighting conditions?

Yep, I sure can. Some people play a really good game of basketball, some people are great at math, I’m great at visuals. As a result, I was heavily involved in fine arts up through college and am now a designer by profession. I’ve had a lot of practice by now.

So too, if I take Heather's pink shoe, and take a poorly calibrated image of it, it's a teal shoe.

In the example of bleaching hair or dyeing a shirt, you’re changing the color of an object. In the example of the shoe, you’re changing the lighting. That’s not at all the same. If you dyed the shoe teal, it’d be a teal shoe. But if you turn the lights off or close your eyes, the shoe is still pink, even if you personally can’t see it.
posted by Autumnheart at 6:29 AM on May 4 [2 favorites]


Absent any photons the shoe has no colour, only the potential of colour.
posted by blue_beetle at 6:49 AM on May 4 [4 favorites]


I see a grey and teal picture of a pink and white shoe.
posted by flabdablet at 7:07 AM on May 4 [8 favorites]


When the dress thing was going around, the operations guy at my work who was kind of a man-splainey type was getting increasingly irritated about the rest of us discussing it. He started ranting that it's all about monitor calibration! It's not an illusion! You're all wack - it doesn't change color! So, to mess with him, I put it up on the projector at the start of our all-hands meeting and just left it there. He'd kind of run out of bluster on this and he knew I was teasing him and so he was kind of sulking in the corner and people were laughing about the dress and then he went, "Oh my god!" And he was staring at the screen like it had morphed into a Stay Puft Marshmallow Man and said, "It just changed! How did it change?! Ahhhhh! Dammit!!"

People get really angry when they realize their perception is fluid and often unreliable. I want to relate this to politics somehow but...eh.
posted by amanda at 7:26 AM on May 4 [13 favorites]


So apparently some people can adjust photos in their head to compensate for bad color balance or lighting conditions?

I guess I'm one of those people. I always see the colors in the photo as the colors the item has in real life, and I can't see it any other way.

If I could trade this ability in for a sense of direction, I would do so in a heartbeat.
posted by selfmedicating at 7:49 AM on May 4 [1 favorite]


I notice the color distortion straight away, first thing, and it makes my brain say nope; I can try to trick my brain a little and tell it to see pink, but it's not super effective. But I've always known this about my brain. I tend to see exactly what's in front of me, and I zero in on whatever appears to be wrong. So when the color is off, the comma's in the wrong place, or you're wearing two slightly differently textured socks, I'm going to notice that. Mistake halfway down the menu? Jumps right out when I scan. Annoying AF? Yep. Copy editor by trade because I finally found a way to channel it? Yep.
posted by heyho at 8:00 AM on May 4 [2 favorites]


It's basically a real life example of the classic checkerboard illusion, right? Every book on drawing or painting I've ever read tells you that the first skill you have to learn is how to see things as they really are.

Here's James Gurney's explanation of this same phenomenon, which he calls "color constancy".
posted by ishmael at 8:01 AM on May 4 [3 favorites]


Omg I went meta meta

Never go full meta meta.


I never met a meta meta I didn't like.
posted by otherchaz at 8:52 AM on May 4 [1 favorite]


The interesting effect for me is that if I look at the hand my brain automatically color adjusts the rest of the picture and I see a pink shoe. If I don’t then I see the grey.

Whoa, me too. Mind blown. (Well, except now I can’t go back)
posted by trillian at 9:14 AM on May 4


Both pictures are of the same shoe. One picture has been color corrected to fix the white balance. Unless someone can show me that this shoe even comes in a grey and teal model, with teal shoelaces.
posted by emelenjr at 9:22 AM on May 4


The original looked dusty pink to me probably because I mentally corrected the shoelaces to white but it's not so easy when there is no actual white in a photo which reminds me, do not order curtains online because vendors are not color balancing photos either and that buttery yellow is actually orange and the medium grey is dark with a purple cast, Kohl's.
posted by TWinbrook8 at 9:47 AM on May 4 [2 favorites]


Interesting, I like others saw the teal/grey until my brain registered the hand and adjusted for white balance. I can also get it to switch back and forth by consciously declaring either the shoe or the picture as the object.
posted by calamari kid at 9:53 AM on May 4 [2 favorites]


I see grey and teal on the left - with and without flux.
posted by Ms. Moonlight at 10:21 AM on May 4


Aghhh! I saw gray and teal on the left, until I read mmoncur's comment and looked at the hand. Now I cannot see gray and teal, just pink and white for both. I can't see it anymore. Brains.
posted by queensissy at 10:29 AM on May 4 [1 favorite]


I am also gray/teal, but now I can make it change back and forth.

Interestingly, the thing you learn about drawing isn't to draw things as they are but rather only as they appear. Your brain interprets certain lines, but to draw those interpretations is to make an unrealistic picture. (It might still be good for many reasons, but not accurate.) You have to empty your mind and just draw what you see. If you wanted to make a painting of bad white balance, you would use gray and teal.
posted by dame at 10:47 AM on May 4 [2 favorites]


Bummer. I think this was really ruined by the side-by-side of the two pictures. Kind of robs you of the chance to miss-see it.
posted by GoblinHoney at 11:17 AM on May 4 [2 favorites]


explosion: “The question is, "what color is the shoe in this picture?”

Even without the heavy lifting being done with those italics, that’s not actually the question this post is about.
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 12:41 PM on May 4 [2 favorites]


my art teacher liked to say "a color isn't a color unless it's next to another color"
posted by Jacqueline at 2:10 PM on May 4 [3 favorites]


I see someone who needs to stop taking pictures in pathetically low light. Add a filter and this shoe could be any color you like.
posted by egypturnash at 2:43 PM on May 4 [1 favorite]


Just as another data point, I have a new(ish) computer; at the time of the blue/white dress and the Yanny/Laurel thing I was using a cheap chromebook. On that old computer, the dress was *obviously* white and gold, even after I saw the original and read all the explanations about lighting and color balance. On that computer, I also only heard Yanny---unless I used headphones, and then I heard Laurel.

On this new computer, though, the dress looks blue and black (although not the same shade of blue as the real dress), and I only hear Laurel whether I use headphones or not. (I also see the shoe in the original picture as either grey or pink, depending on whether I focus on the hand or not).

I have not had any head injuries in the last couple years, or any other events that would reasonably cause a major shift in my perceptive abilities, so I wonder how much of the difference in what people see/hear is really a function of the tech we're using, rather than something innate in how we perceive the world.
posted by Meow Face at 2:55 PM on May 4 [2 favorites]


I cannot see it as pink and white, I'm pretty sure it was the same with the dress. I know the actual shoe is pink and white, I tried opening the full picture, covering everything but the hand and staring at that in a dark room, picturing a pink and white shoe, until I thought the hand looked normal, nope. It's a nice teal though.
posted by lucidium at 3:15 PM on May 4


On this new computer, though, the dress looks blue and black

Yeah, in addition to people debating whether the question refers to the original object or the photo, the other big issue is screen calibration. It's not just like we're passing around a polaroid of a shoe, but more like we all have different randomized prints from a single negative- some developed at high-end photo shops and some by a Walgreens teenager printing them on a cheap inkjet.
posted by p3t3 at 4:43 PM on May 4 [1 favorite]


Once again, my brain's color-correction algorithms are too strong for me to override.
I saw a badly-lit black and blue dress, now I see a badly-lit pink and white shoe, and I cannot see it any other way, no matter the monitor or device I use. Is the pink part "grey" and the white party "teal"? What am I supposed to be seeing?
posted by agentofselection at 6:36 PM on May 4


I also frequently disagree with people about where the lines lie between, e.g. green, blue, and purple in real life, which is a bit distressing because my job requires me to identify plants with keys that sometimes use color as an identifying factor. I should just start carrying a Munsel book with me always (to prove to people that they are wrong).
posted by agentofselection at 6:42 PM on May 4


The side-by-side definitely ruins it. The shoe on the left looks grey and aqua, the shoe on the right looks pink and white. I don’t know what I would have seen if I had seen the unfiltered pic in isolation.
posted by andraste at 7:41 PM on May 4 [4 favorites]


hey that started with spoilers! once I knew what I was expected to see or not, I saw it. there it is. bad white balancing makes higher wavelength/temperature lighting (flourescents) turn whites into teals, or something like that. It's like when you see a house's windows lit up at night, and some rooms look like daylight and some look yellow, and some look blue in comparison to one another...

...michael bey made a fortune off this somehow
posted by not_on_display at 8:45 PM on May 4


Can't see the shoe as anything other than grey and teal. Even when looking at the hand. Can't see the dress as other than blue and black. I am a visual artist and have worked really hard on drawing only what I see, not what I interpret. I guess that work paid off.
posted by WalkerWestridge at 9:07 PM on May 4


When I first saw the shoe yesterday, it was obviously grey. Then, gradually, as I kept glancing at it, a pinkish hue crept in. Now it is immediately pink, not the same shade of pink than the one on the right, but still clearly pink. This is unsurprising. Object recognition and colour perception are known to work together. A red lake is perceived as blue, because there are no red lakes.
posted by ikalliom at 12:52 AM on May 5 [1 favorite]


The one on the left is grey and white. The one on the right is grey and white.

Sometimes being colorblind is nice.
posted by kyrademon at 2:13 AM on May 5 [3 favorites]


If you are an essentialist, you see the shoe as being fundamentally pink and white, and the fact that it is poorly lit is an accidental quality that doesn't affect that essense. If you are a phenomenalist, you understand that the shoe has no color except when it is perceived under particular conditions, and so there are two different pictures: one which is grey and teal, and a second which is pink and white. The essentialists have internalized that philosophy so hard that it changes what they see.

I've been thinking about that and it bothers me.

It seems to me that there is a perfectly workable objective definition of the colours of surfaces that is at its heart phenomenalist: the colour of any surface can be defined in terms of its absorption and reflection spectra when exposed to black-body radiation of some standard intensity and colour temperature.

I am unconvinced that claiming that a shoe is pink, in the sense defined above, counts as essentialism. Rather, the claim amounts to a testable prediction about what the results of an experiment performed on that shoe under controlled conditions - i.e. a specific phenomenon - would be.

The human visual system is generally quite good at estimating surface colour, in the sense defined above, even when the light source(s) illuminating any given surface are some way from standard test conditions and even when additional modifications are performed to the reflected spectrum e.g. by filtering or some of the less complicated kinds of digital manipulation. The more experience-based clues appear in the scene, in the form of objects whose colours have generally been previously observed to occupy some restricted range, the more accurate those generated surface colour estimates will be.

So it remains completely reasonable to look at a photograph containing greyish shoe-shapes and tealish shoe-highlight-shapes and a rather greenish hand-shape, and perceive that it is a poor-quality photograph of a pink shoe with white highlights, and therefore to perceive the shoe depicted in the photograph as pink, even if one has always considered essentialism to have been constructed entirely from self-deluding twaddle.

However, it should not be particularly astonishing to learn that deliberate, conscious, a-priori estimates about selected surface colours can also get fed back into the visual processing subsystem and affect the estimates (and therefore the perceptions) that it yields. Human beings also have a long and storied history of being able to see only what we choose to, and the literature is full of examples of this kind of thing happening in other perceptual domains as well e.g. the McGurk Effect.
posted by flabdablet at 6:06 AM on May 5


When I first saw this I thought it was a joke referring to the dress, because this was obviously grey and teal (the version I saw didn't have the other picture). But obviously the lighting is crazy.

I only saw the dress as black and blue and still don't get the other way. I've always thought I was good at determining true color in odd light, and that confirmed it. But this is the opposite and a lot of other people seemed to have that reaction.

I wonder what the difference is, the specific shades? Because with the hand in there, and really concentrating, I can see the pinkish tone, although very pale. But it's still pink and teal. The teal is blindingly bright, I can't imagine how that's white unless it's under a green fluorescent light. I feel like there's a weird black light or something involved.
posted by bongo_x at 2:34 AM on May 6


« Older Dooced and Bouncing Back   |   Three Cents a Week Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments