So you think you know which colours are which?

[JamesF]

Just seen this on the BBC website.  It's a [removed word] piece, but actually I think there's a very interesting point about perception behind it that's certainly relevant in relation to how we think about image processing.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-31656935

For what it's worth, I found a larger picture than that in the BBC article and showed it to my wife and daughter.  My interpretation is the same as my wife's.  My wife and daughter absolutely disagree

James

[JamesF]

Now I know the electronic sensor has gone mad.  The "[removed word]" was J-O-K-E-Y.  I thought I was reasonably well-versed in the use and abuse of English, but someone is going to have to explain that one to me.

James

[JamesF]

I'll take it on the chin for not being able to type "censor" correctly first time around though

James

[wxsatuser]

It's blue and black to me but washed out.

If I look real close at it the black has a gold like tinge to it and in places the blue could be white.

A really poor exposure.

[gajjer]

I see it as white and gold. With a lot of optical illusions I can work it out - but with this one I can not see the blue. I was shocked when I saw how blue it was in the shop.

cheers

gaj

[mdstuart]

This made me think about all the debates about the colours of double stars.....why are stars only blue when they form part of a double!

[Dave Lloyd]

The picture on the left looks nothing like those in the newspapers which showed blue and black.

[Stu]

It's white and gold to me, blue and black to my daughter.

Does the effect only happen when viewed on an LCD screen or in print too?

I assume if I see the actual dress I will see blue/black?

[Mr Spock]

Not that dress again!

Simple - the photo is grossly over exposed on a cheap camera. The camera has exposed for the dominant area (dark blue) and exposed it as a mid tone. Therefore the background is washed out completely, the dark blue looks light, and the black has been distorted by the colour balance of the camera.

What gets me is all the visual and colour experts on the internet trying to explain this as an optical illusion etc. Whay are these people getting paid and for what? It's just a rubbish photo not an insight into the human visual system!

The dress itself is cheap and nasty. After all this anyone who owns one will quite rightly throw it away.

[Stu]

Not that dress again!

Simple - the photo is grossly over exposed on a cheap camera. The camera has exposed for the dominant area (dark blue) and exposed it as a mid tone. Therefore the background is washed out completely, the dark blue looks light, and the black has been distorted by the colour balance of the camera.

What gets me is all the visual and colour experts on the internet trying to explain this as an optical illusion etc. Whay are these people getting paid and for what? It's just a rubbish photo not an insight into the human visual system!

The dress itself is cheap and nasty. After all this anyone who owns one will quite rightly throw it away.

I'm sure you are right about the cheap camera/over exposure part Michael, but it clearly puts the image right on a threshold where people do see it differently. As said my daughter sees it as blue and black, I see white and gold

[JamesF]

It's just a rubbish photo not an insight into the human visual system!

I disagree.  It may well be a rubbish photo, but the fact remains that different people perceive completely different colours when the look at the image, even rendered on the same device under the same lighting conditions and when they're right next to each other.  I'd have expected different people to see subtle variations in colour perhaps, but to be convinced that there's such a huge difference is something I'd never have thought likely.

James

[ollypenrice]

Not that dress again!

Simple - the photo is grossly over exposed on a cheap camera. The camera has exposed for the dominant area (dark blue) and exposed it as a mid tone. Therefore the background is washed out completely, the dark blue looks light, and the black has been distorted by the colour balance of the camera.

What gets me is all the visual and colour experts on the internet trying to explain this as an optical illusion etc. Whay are these people getting paid and for what? It's just a rubbish photo not an insight into the human visual system!

The dress itself is cheap and nasty. After all this anyone who owns one will quite rightly throw it away.

But how does thie explain the variability in what people see? It's this which is so surprizing.

Olly

[wxsatuser]

Do the people who say it's white also see other blue objects as white. ?

I cannot see any white in it apart from the badly exposed parts.

[Cath]

The fascinating part is seeing the learning happening

[DaveS]

Oh lord! I first saw this crop up on the Amateur Photographer forum. To me it looks light blue and brownish-gold. I see the same colours on two different monitors including my wide-gamut one at home.

As has been said, a rubbish photo badly over-exposed on some cheap-'n'-nasty iphone, but it does point up differences in perception.

The last time I had an Ishihara test (When I was applying for a job in a paint company) I scored perfect colour FWIW.

Edit: The other BBC photo clearly shows the "true" colours of the dress, as dark blue and black, though I suspect the "black" has its own ccolour cast, and isn't a true "black"

[Stu]

Oh lord! I first saw this crop up on the Amateur Photographer forum. To me it looks light blue and brownish-gold. I see the same colours on two different monitors including my wide-gamut one at home.

As has been said, a rubbish photo badly over-exposed on some cheap-'n'-nasty iphone, but it does point up differences in perception.

The last time I had an Ishihara test (When I was applying for a job in a paint company) I scored perfect colour FWIW.

Edit: The other BBC photo clearly shows the "true" colours of the dress, as dark blue and black, though I suspect the "black" has its own ccolour cast, and isn't a true "black"

I think your last comment is correct,y daughter sees very dark gold, almost black but not quite

[JamesF]

One interesting but yet not entirely convincing explanation of this effect that I read over the weekend suggested that as part of the way our brains process colour they do a sort of "colour transformation" to allow for the colour and brightness of the light illuminating a scene.  People whose brains tend to recognise that image as being lit by natural light and therefore having a slightly blue cast might "correct" their interpretation by giving less priority to the blue component of the image and see the dress as white, whereas those who recognise it as being light by artificial light may not.

That our perception of colour might be affected by the brain's interpretation of context is not something I'd attempt to argue with, but that it might have such a significant result is quite surprising to me.

James

[JamesF]

Actually, what would be quite interesting now would be to create some sort of image that the white/gold people see "correctly" that the "blue/black" people don't.

James

[David Smith]

Anyone who sees that as gold and white needs medical assistance

[si@nite]

Anyone who sees that as gold and white needs medical assistance

I need medical assistance lol!

[LukeSkywatcher]

This is the very reason why i never try dresses on in the store. The colours in stores under bright lights are totally different to when trying clothes on at home. 

[Stu]

Anyone who sees that as gold and white needs medical assistance

DOCTOR!!

[Stu]

Paul, I never try dresses on in store either, for some other reason which escapes me though...... ;-)

[Dave_D]

Paul, I never try dresses on in store either, for some other reason which escapes me though...... ;-)

I do... well, have...

[Stainlesssteve]

You humans have auto white balance and auto exposure, don't expect anything to look the same to everyone.