you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 7 points 1 year ago* (11 children)

The "white" pixels are literally blue. The "black" ones can be considered gold due to the lighting.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    You missed the whole point. If I take a white dress and then shine a blue lamp on it, then take a photo.The pixels will be 100% blue, but would that mean the dress itself is blue?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    But you can clearly see that the lighting is bright yellow-white, not blue...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    The yellow background could be lit by another window or a different light source, so one could argue we don't have a good reference to tell. But the point is that the "picture of a thing" is not "the thing" itself, and there is always a possibility that they are different.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    If I showed you a picture of a green surface, and asked you what color it is, would you say that it's white and that there's probably green light shining on it?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    No, but it doesn't mean the other answer is invalid too. If there is no reference in the picture to tell what kind of light condition it was shot at, both answers could be possible.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] -5 points 1 year ago (3 children)
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago

    Yes a very light blue, nobody is seeing brilliant white. But on a colour slider it’s much closer to white than the ‘true’ blue of the dress. If you sample the sleeve or whatever that is hanging over it’ll be even closer to pure white.

  • source
  • parent