-
Welcome to Autism Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Aspergers Syndrome, Autism, High Functioning Autism and related conditions.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Private Member only forums for more serious discussions that you may wish to not have guests or search engines access to.
- Your very own blog. Write about anything you like on your own individual blog.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon! Please also check us out @ https://www.twitter.com/aspiescentral
The Dress [in relation to ASD]
- Thread starter JuniperBug
- Start date
a minority here- I saw a watery bronze and a blueish-violetey white. something was the matter with that pic, I am sure the real subject of the photo, seen by human eyes and not the camera's eye, would reveal something different yet.
Dusty285
Well-Known Member
"Original" is light blue and gold.
"Brighter" is gold with a very very pale blue. The light stripes each have two lines of blue. But this is a 'washed out' image. The light stripes still have a trace of blue despite the serious lighting problem.
"Darker" is trying to be black with a 'Royal' blue. This image looks like the auto exposure was seeing the background light and the subject, "The Dress," is so underexposed it is pitiful.
Looking at the image critically, the jacket may be white or a blue that matches the lighter bands of the dress. More probably white, along with the light bands, but this white takes on shades of blue depending on other factors. Therefore the lighter color is white with a trace of blue; even if the blue is a product of a "Whitening" wash chemical causing a fluorescing from the light and picked up by the camera. The color rendition of the camera is highly suspect. Either the color circuits have a big problem (electronic or poor adjustments) or the light source is producing a severely skewed light spectrum. Also, the editing may have messed with the colors. The dark color of the dress may be gold or a yellow or tan. There may be some reflected light from some of the darker bands which would indicate a more or less metallic gold.
Black absorbs all light and remains black. The darker bands do not do that and are not black. If that is a real "black," a digital photo editor program has been used to very strongly mess with it.
This is what I see with my eyes and evaluated from amateur efforts at photography with a variety of 35 MM cameras and films and now the digital cameras in cell phones and "cameras." Also from using a photo editor in my computer that could change lighting and enhance or reduce various colors.
Another thought is that even most TV's could be used to seriously change color effects and then a screen shot with a camera or 'capture' image would give pictures like "The Dress." Things like this were more difficult when it was all on film.
"Brighter" is gold with a very very pale blue. The light stripes each have two lines of blue. But this is a 'washed out' image. The light stripes still have a trace of blue despite the serious lighting problem.
"Darker" is trying to be black with a 'Royal' blue. This image looks like the auto exposure was seeing the background light and the subject, "The Dress," is so underexposed it is pitiful.
Looking at the image critically, the jacket may be white or a blue that matches the lighter bands of the dress. More probably white, along with the light bands, but this white takes on shades of blue depending on other factors. Therefore the lighter color is white with a trace of blue; even if the blue is a product of a "Whitening" wash chemical causing a fluorescing from the light and picked up by the camera. The color rendition of the camera is highly suspect. Either the color circuits have a big problem (electronic or poor adjustments) or the light source is producing a severely skewed light spectrum. Also, the editing may have messed with the colors. The dark color of the dress may be gold or a yellow or tan. There may be some reflected light from some of the darker bands which would indicate a more or less metallic gold.
Black absorbs all light and remains black. The darker bands do not do that and are not black. If that is a real "black," a digital photo editor program has been used to very strongly mess with it.
This is what I see with my eyes and evaluated from amateur efforts at photography with a variety of 35 MM cameras and films and now the digital cameras in cell phones and "cameras." Also from using a photo editor in my computer that could change lighting and enhance or reduce various colors.
Another thought is that even most TV's could be used to seriously change color effects and then a screen shot with a camera or 'capture' image would give pictures like "The Dress." Things like this were more difficult when it was all on film.
anthoskate
Well-Known Member
I can't understand how this is happening. My mum and my brother both see it as white and gold, but I can only see blue and black.
And the blue isn't that pale.
And the blue isn't that pale.
anthoskate
Well-Known Member
I found this if anybody want to see it. What color is this dress: A scientist explains visual ambiguity and color constancy.
I had not seen anything about this dress until I saw this discussion. It appears white and gold to me, but blue and brown to my daughter. So, I got an RGB picker app on my phone and sampled the different sections. The part I'm seeing as white is actually a pale gray blue. If I just zoom in so one portion of the dress fills the whole screen then I see the colors correctly.
Spiller
Just.. WEIRD!
I found this I thought was quite interesting: snopes.com: Do Some People Have a 4th Retinal Cone?
I count 34 colors, which makes me a tetrachromat with four types of retinal cone and I may well see green differently..
I count 34 colors, which makes me a tetrachromat with four types of retinal cone and I may well see green differently..
zurb
Eschewer of Obfuscation
I wonder if one of causes of the difference of perception may be in training/experience (seeing what is actually there rather than a contextualised adjusted image) - eg, do realist painters and photographers perceive it differently?
As a photographer, I need to know how my camera sees the light. Painters seldom paint shadows with grey.
As a photographer, I need to know how my camera sees the light. Painters seldom paint shadows with grey.
AsheSkyler
Feathered Jester
I honestly think so.
New Threads
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Funny things that someone thought you said when you said something else
- Started by Misty Avich
- Replies: 1
-
Has noise-cancelling earphones caused pain for you before?
- Started by Misty Avich
- Replies: 9