I never joined the discussion about the dress (I was actually removed from technology pretty much until after the whole debate died down, after which I experienced another interesting phenomenon).<p>But what is fascinating to me is that the day following the debate, I saw the image in Wired [1] and for the life of me could not possibly see black and blue no matter how hard I tried.<p>I just now read this article, looked at the image at the bottom, then tried to find the original Wired image, and now cannot see white and gold. The influence is so strong that part of me almost thinks it's not the same image.<p>It sort of reminds me of when I first figured out how to "see" those stereograms, and how once you know how to see one of them, seeing any of them is easy.<p>[1] <a href="http://www.wired.com/2015/02/science-one-agrees-color-dress/" rel="nofollow">http://www.wired.com/2015/02/science-one-agrees-color-dress/</a>
These discussions always remind me of David Langford's work:<p><a href="http://www.infinityplus.co.uk/stories/blit.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.infinityplus.co.uk/stories/blit.htm</a><p><a href="http://www.lightspeedmagazine.com/fiction/different-kinds-of-darkness/" rel="nofollow">http://www.lightspeedmagazine.com/fiction/different-kinds-of...</a><p><a href="http://ansible.uk/writing/c-b-faq.html" rel="nofollow">http://ansible.uk/writing/c-b-faq.html</a>
This has been covered on HN before (IIRC that's where I first read about it), but my favorite vision color "trick" is the McCollough Effect, mostly because of how long it lasts (weeks in my case, YMMV):<p><a href="http://www.cheswick.com/ches/projects/me/" rel="nofollow">http://www.cheswick.com/ches/projects/me/</a>
I know it's slightly off topic but I've been fascinated with the idea of blind people having 'optical' illusions. Eg does the cafe wall illusion (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Café_wall_illusion" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Café_wall_illusion</a>) work if you're blind and investigating a real cafe wall with that pattern using your fingers? Or are there other things that _do_ create perceptual illusions because of the different way blind people experience the world?
<a href="http://xkcd.com/1492/" rel="nofollow">http://xkcd.com/1492/</a><p>I suspect people seeing white/gold live/grew up in sunny climate with blue sky, sea?, maybe blue walls/wallpaper in their bedroom. Basically people primed for seeing things illuminated by blue tinted light.
If anyone's interested in recreating some of these, LaTeX provides a neat way to do so: <a href="https://www.overleaf.com/gallery/tagged/illusions" rel="nofollow">https://www.overleaf.com/gallery/tagged/illusions</a>
So the popular hypothesis is that the dress is black and blue.<p>I have now seen so many different sites and authors try to explain the phenomenon, all based on the "proof" that some random woman named Caitlin McNeil who first offered the disputed picture originally claiming she saw it as white and gold in the picture, saw it some days later in person, said it was definitely black and blue and offered a picture of an indisputably black and blue dress that appeared to be identical or at least too similar to be able to tell a difference definitely.<p>The issue to me is that I'm seeing sites like Wired and I f<i></i>king love science explain how the dispute is possible based on optical illusions and ultimately say that the dress is black and blue because of the other image and the claims of a dress manufacturer with no credence to possibility that the dress in one picture may be different than the dress in the others and that dressgate might just be an elaborate hoax.<p>The thing is, you can just as easily explain why the dress is white and gold and appears blue and black to some people given the intense back lighting in the disputed image implying sunlight in the background and the effects of reflected UV light can play on shaded white objects (think black uv lights) or effects like solarization that can happen in digital imagery.<p>The thing is, I'm sick of hearing the dress is blue and black because "science", when science hasn't been involved in anyone's "proof" of the effect. What you have is a hypothesis. Want to make it a viable theory? Take the black and blue dress or one of the identical ones from the designer claiming that's their black and blue dress and recreate an identical image that appears white and gold with the same tonal qualities and environmental lighting. Until someone does that, I don't think there's any reason to continue "proving" why the dispute exists with non-science or arguing about this nonsensical bullshieza as it has become a gargantuan distraction from reality whether or not it was originally meant to be.
Okay, I'm probably going to get marked down for this, but... with that whole "the dress" thing, am I wrong to think it's not just Photoshop and/or the dress coming out different colours in the image depending on the light?<p>Take this example...
<a href="http://assets-s3.usmagazine.com/uploads/assets/articles/83714-the-dress-sales-are-up-retailer-looking-into-white-and-gold-version/1425052031_the-dress-retail-467.jpg" rel="nofollow">http://assets-s3.usmagazine.com/uploads/assets/articles/8371...</a><p>Now does everyone seeing that see bronze and light blue on the left, and dark blue and black on the right?<p>Supposedly these are images of the same dress. If anyone suggests they're seeing the colours differently on this example, I'll be genuinely surprised, but at the moment I find that unlikely.<p>EDIT: ...and the downvotes have started. How predictable.