I agree. I’ve looked away and back and from below and it’s white and gold. I scrolled up and down and refreshed the page. I mean it’s not pure white and bright gold, but essentially it’s white and gold and nowhere is there black and royal blue.
The dresses designer says it is Royal blue and black. I saw light blue and gray, I suppose it was the lighting.
I don’t know–for me, the ONLY interesting thing about this whole hullabaloo is how the people who see it both ways freak out so much. It clearly challenges an ideology that people cling to which cannot accept that “facts” are not constants–that “facts” are always filtered by the apparatus through which they are perceived, which itself is not constant.
And, yes, this thread should have been a simple, mechanical poll. What’s the point of each person just posting the colors that they see?
Looked at it this morning after waking up it was white and gold, which upset me. Then after a few seconds it turned blue and black in front of my eyes. Creepy.
The New York Times has the best explanation I’ve seen yet, with a great graphic to make it easy to see what’s going on:
So, start a poll then.
's all cool – we both agree on that, but just making sure the Vehement Factions understood.
And to some of them it becomes a challenge about the facts themselves, rather than about the reliability of the apparatus that mediates the perception; or about their own reliability as observers, like they are being accused of missing the forest for the trees. It’s seen as supporting the* "What The &^%$ Do We Know" school of thought. But the good part is eventually, facts can be verified through other observations, a misleading initial perception does not mean reality is unknowable.
The people who allege it’s “impossible” to see one or the other color are what’s fascinating. So happens, it is true the pixels on the screen are a golden mustardy and a pale haze. It*** is also*** true the dress IRL is black and blue. It is not “impossible” to perceive either.
I like it!
It’s obviously purple and green. You’ll need new computers.
So for the folks who see it as black and blue, all the photos on the page look the same/similar?
Not for me. I see them all as different shades of blue. The closest I come to white is half of the “Is it in shadow” graphic. But it’s always a very definite shade of blue for me. Even when it’s light blue, it’s unmistakably blue for me.
For white/goldies, if you came across the shade of blue with most of the light/context completely cropped, do you still see it as white?
Nope. The blue/blackers are seeing what’s there. It’s the white/golders who are, literally, seeing things. 
I’m detecting a little snippiness coming from the white/golders on FB. Some of them are still having difficulty accepting the blue/blackers are right. The majority gets so cute when they’re wrong.
I wonder if there’s blue jays feather thing going on here. Has the dress make said what materials the dress is made of?
Hasn’t that been shown not to be the case? There are no black stripes in the photo, they’re an orangy brown.
What’s happening is both groups are unconsciously color-correcting the photo, in opposite directions, due to differing assumptions about the lighting conditions. The blue/blackers are right, and they’re not just lucky–they seem to be taking more info from the photo into account than the white/golders like me–but they’re not “just seeing what’s there.” They’re color-correcting just like the rest of us.
Most of the blue/blackers I’ve heard from are just calling it that for simplicity’s sake. We know it’s supposed to be black, but we see the washed out browns & greys in it.
Theeeeen it’s not blue and black. It’s washed out brown and grey.
For whatever reason, that’s not been my experience. For example my wife would exclaim that she couldn’t begin to understand how I was seeing anything other than totally black stripes. Maybe some pixels are lighter but it’s black black black. “Gold” or “orange” are inexplicable things to say. Is what she was saying.
There is no see-er.
Thanks for the NYT article. I (firmly in the gold and light blue camp) interpreted the original scene as the crowd and background objects being in bright sunlight, and the model/dress as being in the shade/under an umbrella or awning over the walkway, because, well, if she were actually out in the bright open sunlight as well, wouldn’t it be just as bright as those background objects? But it obviously isn’t, 
so it is actually lighter in real life, thus in “neutral” lighting would be a dress with bright gold trim with light blue (or yes, white) stripes. Right? 
Thus, those who “see” darker blue and black must then be interpreting the model as being in the bright sunshine, not the shadows, so their brains instead “dial” down the colors, way down.
I don’t get the “controversy”. It’s a pale blue and gold dress. As the coloring of the photo changes, so does the appearance of the dress but the original photo is clearly pale blue and gold. What am I missing? 
Seriously, or are you talking tongue in cheek?