On Wed, 27 Apr 2016 18:10:57 +0100, NY wrote:

"Mr Macaw" wrote in message news
I don't see how anyone who isn't clinically insane could have seen black.
Even if you knew the dress should be black, you'd say "Who bleached the
dress?"

Nor me. With a lot of these optical illusions or things that can be seen two
ways, I can say "well I see it this way but I suppose I can understand how
you might see it that way". But not with The Dress. I too find it impossible
to imagine how that vivid old-gold shade could be perceived as really being
black. And how many stops overexposure do you need to convert royal blue
into a very pale white-seen-under-daylight-by-camera-set-for-tungsten
colour?

I wonder if the background (daylight outside) is making a difference - if
the dress was "cut" out of the photo and placed against a neutral black,
white or grey background it would make it look any different.

I was *very* surprised to learn that the dress was actually blue and black
and that the majority of those in the test sample saw it that way, because
it's definitely not what the photo shows. Unless you have prior knowledge of
what colours it should be.

Being a photographer myself (I used to take photos at motorbike races etc with a £3K digital SLR), it doesn't make any sense at all. If there's too much light in the background, a ****ty camera using average instead of point exposure would have made the dress too dark. I see no reason any camera would overexpose because of more light elsewhere. More light makes the camera expose less.

--
My wife and I were happy for twenty years. Then we met.