|
Huntersoninski posted:I'm kind of curious to know the age ranges of the people whose brains do and don't take the image at face value. It may make no difference at all, but I kind of wonder if people who grew up familiar with, say, polaroids, whose brains are accustomed to, or at the very least somewhat experienced with, compensating for lovely exposure or faded photos, might be the ones seeing the white/gold initially, and those who are used to most photos they take being generally correct are the ones who take it at face value as blue/black. At face value it's blue/gold, I have no idea how people are managing to get "black." I mean, I can tell it's a phenomenally lovely and overexposed photo and intellectually I can understand how it started out as black, but it's definitely not black at all in the finished picture (as opposed to the rest of the dress, which is definitely still blue and just gets reinterpreted as white.) Like, observe these two very obviously black rectangles:  and this Two of a kind, right?
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2015 22:51
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 16:12 |
|
|
Ruzihm posted:
The funny thing is that the actual white and gold fabric depicted here does a better job of looking like blue and black (when in shadow) than the dress does.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2015 01:24
|
|
at the nerds arguing about pixel colors.