Be Excellent To Each Other

Not that vivid. The blue is paler, more violet and the black isn't a dark black.

Clearly some algorithm based on your search history is at play here. I got "20 ways in which a man can ruin a blowjob for everyone involved"

Everyone?!?

Yep. Cos it's blue.

Do you really believe that? What colour is my dress in this picture, do you think?


And what about this dress?


Do you really only directly trust the colours in those images? They were both taken on the same day, and they are both of my wedding dress. It was neither blue, purple, brown or gold. Here is a photo from the same day, in daylight:




See, my brain assumes something else (and may be either right or wrong in the way that my brain interprets what my eyes is seeing, I honestly don't know. I think of cameras and the white balance thereof: so, you know that a lot of cameras can be either manually white-balanced, left on auto or set to react to certain lighting conditions (overact, sunny, tungsten and halogen lamps, a few others...) Some forms of artificial light think old lightbulbs and some energy saving ones, as well as sunlight) give off a warm light. The light is not white, but warm yellowish. This can sometimes give pictures a warm tone, which looks great in sunlight, but can look bad in artificial light. you can set your camera to compensate for this, and some will do it automatically, by cooling down the picture - it basically applies a blue cast to the image. The same can be done in reverse with a cold light source - blue artificial light can be compensated for in a camera's settings by the camera sensing that light and warming the image up.

If the phone cam is sensing a harsh warm artificial light it might be trying to downplay the overexposure by darkening the image, which will take effect in the foreground where the image is only backlit, and compensating for the warmth of the artificial over-warm light by cooling the image down.

This all processes in my head to explain the image, and it may be right, it may be wrong, but I think that's why I see it differently.

However, though I can see how the white in the image can look blue (though I would say a slightly dull cornflower blue, running into violet - not the royal blue shown everywhere) I cannot, even with the eyedropper tool, reconcile the other colour as being black. At best I can see a mid brown, not black at all, so maybe screen differences play some part too.

But really, as in the pics of my wedding dress, I don't think the colour isolation idea really gives much useful information.

Yeah, I've seen the dress in person! Do those pics look identical to you though?

Not identical, but both blue.

I have a hunch it's more than that. Some smartphones, not least of which are the iPhone 5S and 6, have two-tone flashes; one white, one orange-ish. When you press shoot, the phone calculates the best hue for the flash to match the ambient light, and creates that hue by varying the output strength of the two flashes.

When it works, that's great. But if it doesn't, if the calculation goes awry, you might flash with coloured light a long way away from ambient; you can now have a whole class of colour cast issues which can go way beyond a run-of-the-mill white balance screw up. I wonder if that's what caused this dress pic, because the colours really are an extraordinary long way out of whack.

LOL

You would have thought they would have worn different colors to continue the argument.

The dress looks better in white and gold, whichever it is. Maybe it is design bias? We want to see white and gold because the blue and black version is uglier.

Your wedding pics are lovely

DavPaz in a gold and cream dress. There's an image I didn't need.

Russell just came home and took the micky out of me 'LOOK AT MY DRESS, IT IS PURPLE!!' I don't understand. Anyhoo, there is a matching pic of you with an equally purply shirt

Russell said you are being genuine. I don't even know what to believe any more.

Maybe he is just the pillock.

I was being genuine!

Ahh, that makes more sense.

I'd forgotten you'd posted those and thought he was talking about the photo Davpaz had posted.

Much confusion.

He lies, you know. He lies.

Wonderful pics. :)


Your face is also lit up by the light in that pic, so it's hardly a fair comparison... though I'd put 50p on the 10000:1 bet that there's a white-that-fades-to-blue-behind-you fashion that I've never heard of.


That could be 'Royal Yellow', for sure.

Thank you

I don't think it is a particularly unfair comparison in the context: you'd said that you read only the colours presented to you in the pixels of the digital image, though here you actually show the background computation your brain does to adjust the image: The face has a blue/purple cast from some non-natual lighting, your brain tells you to subtract the same hue from the dress which you would then guess to be white.



Again, he lighting conditions show the dim, warm light in everything surrounding the dress: the walls, skin tones, shadow. If you apply the same logic as above your brain might return to you that if you take out the added warmth and darkness you are left with white.

I'm not saying you are wrong in either of these examples, but I think it helps to explain why people read images and colours differently: some take the pixel information as literal, whereas others perhaps read the lighting conditions and other factors to get to the colours as seen in natural light. From the looks of what you have written for each of those pictures, I would guess that you sit somewhere in the middle, as you seem to have done it for the first but not the second.

The dress was white, of course, but can look quite different in different lights: I would read all as 'white' or 'ivory', but understand that not everyone would do the same.

Then thank you I thought you'd already seen them, I guess. There's a great one of you dancing to... something... I don't even know what, a great one of MaliA, Cras and Kov, too: https://www.flickr.com/photos/eskimimi/ ... 382119141/

http://m.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/new ... ref=twtrec

ScIence!

Blue and white then.

basically it’s the dress thing again, but in audio

I hear ‘yanny’, or an approximation of. The funny thing in this, as in the dress, is that I absolutely cannot understand how someone else might see/hear the other option

I absolutely hear "Laurel"

This has a tool where you can change the frequencies a bit - apparently it's all to do with how sensitive your hearing is at different ranges.

It's yanny, no doubt about it.

Laurel.

The weirder one is this though as I hear what I'm thinking of each time:

I find that less ‘weird’ as it were, as I’m listenjng to hear a different sound so can hear both. I cannot hear ‘Laurel’ for the life of me, though.

I hear Yanny, but it's all a big con anyway

At first I could only hear yanny, but now I can hear either depending on which frequency I tune in to. You can experiment by lowering or increasing the volume.

I noticed an official Whitehouse YouTube video about all this yesterday which had various staff members giving their opinion. They were all wooden and terrible and cringey (especially fucking Sarah Sanders who I have a weird hatred of), but the most surprising aspect was Trump coming across quite well by saying that he heard 'covfefe'. It was actually amusing and surprising given that the ability to poke fun at himself is hardly what he's known for.

ETA: here it's here in fact.

Aww, that's actually quite a cute little video

Shame they're all terrifying people.

I still can't ever see that dress as anything but blue and black.

If you imagine the light source coming from the front (or back, whichever way round it is), it makes it easier.

So what colours are this shoe?

cyany turquoise soles and laces, grey flesh.

I agree with Dimrill.

Concur.

Dunno, but the hand holding it sure looks a funny tone too.

Pink and white.

I agree with nick

Now I’m in better light it’s cyan and grey. Weird.

And they’re back to pink and white

Which bit are you seeing as pink and which bit white?

The pink bit is pink. The white bits are white.

Cyan and grey here

The image above looks like a light turquoise and grey trainer.

As mentioned above the hand colour is off. A quick (automatic) colour correction in Photoshop leans more towards a pink shoe.

That's the same picture, as far as I'm concerned.