Talk:1492: Dress Color - Revision history

81.179.199.253 at 19:51, 27 January 2026

2026-01-27T19:51:26Z

47.28.76.207: no illusion

2026-01-27T18:23:40Z

no illusion

Certified nqh at 15:18, 3 October 2023

2023-10-03T15:18:08Z

While False: “Error”

2022-11-17T18:00:41Z

“Error”

108.162.238.215: /* "Orange"? */ Commented on "Orange"?

2020-04-11T04:59:51Z

‎"Orange"?: Commented on "Orange"?

173.245.54.77: /* "Orange"? */ new section

2020-03-11T08:09:40Z

‎"Orange"?: new section

173.245.54.77 at 08:04, 11 March 2020

2020-03-11T08:04:45Z

GuiRitter: opinion

2017-11-29T17:35:53Z

opinion

162.158.134.178 at 17:04, 29 November 2017

2017-11-29T17:04:09Z

188.114.99.189: opinion and challenge

2015-12-10T22:40:09Z

opinion and challenge

@@ Line 109: / Line 109: @@
 The explanation mentions the color of the actual physical dress, and I question the relevance of this. The question is not the color of the dress itself but the color of the photograph. (Furthermore, the displayed color of the photograph will vary depending on the monitor its being displayed on, potentially making the whole issue of optical illusions a moot point)
-I don't get it; there's no illusion. They're both white and gold.
+I don't get it; there's no illusion. They're both white and gold. {{unsigned ip|47.28.76.207|18:23, 27 January 2026}}
 == "Orange"? ==

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:23, 27 January 2026
Line 108:		Line 108:

	The explanation mentions the color of the actual physical dress, and I question the relevance of this. The question is not the color of the dress itself but the color of the photograph. (Furthermore, the displayed color of the photograph will vary depending on the monitor its being displayed on, potentially making the whole issue of optical illusions a moot point)		The explanation mentions the color of the actual physical dress, and I question the relevance of this. The question is not the color of the dress itself but the color of the photograph. (Furthermore, the displayed color of the photograph will vary depending on the monitor its being displayed on, potentially making the whole issue of optical illusions a moot point)
		+
		+	I don't get it; there's no illusion. They're both white and gold.

	== "Orange"? ==		== "Orange"? ==

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:18, 3 October 2023
Line 115:		Line 115:

	{{File talk:dress.png}}		{{File talk:dress.png}}
		+
		+	man it just looks like dull gold and dull blue to me [[User:Certified_nqh\|Me]]<sup>[[[285: Wikipedian Protester\|''citation needed'']]][[Category:Pages using the "citation needed" template]]</sup> 15:18, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:00, 17 November 2022
Line 113:		Line 113:
	I question the characterization of the accent color as "orange". Even the block of it sitting by itself in the explanation text is clearly brown or olive		I question the characterization of the accent color as "orange". Even the block of it sitting by itself in the explanation text is clearly brown or olive
	: Fun fact: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wh4aWZRtTwU Brown does not exist in RGB]. It's all about the context. That said, I agree, it certainly looks more brown than orange, when surrounded by the white of the screen. It's more orangey (i.e., it looks brighter) when surrounded by the dark blue in the comic. Anonymous04:59, 11 April 2020 (UTC)		: Fun fact: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wh4aWZRtTwU Brown does not exist in RGB]. It's all about the context. That said, I agree, it certainly looks more brown than orange, when surrounded by the white of the screen. It's more orangey (i.e., it looks brighter) when surrounded by the dark blue in the comic. Anonymous04:59, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
		+
		+	{{File talk:dress.png}}

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:59, 11 April 2020
Line 112:		Line 112:

	I question the characterization of the accent color as "orange". Even the block of it sitting by itself in the explanation text is clearly brown or olive		I question the characterization of the accent color as "orange". Even the block of it sitting by itself in the explanation text is clearly brown or olive
		+	: Fun fact: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wh4aWZRtTwU Brown does not exist in RGB]. It's all about the context. That said, I agree, it certainly looks more brown than orange, when surrounded by the white of the screen. It's more orangey (i.e., it looks brighter) when surrounded by the dark blue in the comic. Anonymous04:59, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:09, 11 March 2020
Line 108:		Line 108:

	The explanation mentions the color of the actual physical dress, and I question the relevance of this. The question is not the color of the dress itself but the color of the photograph. (Furthermore, the displayed color of the photograph will vary depending on the monitor its being displayed on, potentially making the whole issue of optical illusions a moot point)		The explanation mentions the color of the actual physical dress, and I question the relevance of this. The question is not the color of the dress itself but the color of the photograph. (Furthermore, the displayed color of the photograph will vary depending on the monitor its being displayed on, potentially making the whole issue of optical illusions a moot point)
		+
		+	== "Orange"? ==
		+
		+	I question the characterization of the accent color as "orange". Even the block of it sitting by itself in the explanation text is clearly brown or olive

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:04, 11 March 2020
Line 106:		Line 106:

	:I'm not a native English speaker either, and I also take a little longer to understand that phrase because of the way it's worded. Your first suggestion looks better. The second one, though, not as much. [[User:GuiRitter\|GuiRitter]] ([[User talk:GuiRitter\|talk]]) 17:35, 29 November 2017 (UTC)		:I'm not a native English speaker either, and I also take a little longer to understand that phrase because of the way it's worded. Your first suggestion looks better. The second one, though, not as much. [[User:GuiRitter\|GuiRitter]] ([[User talk:GuiRitter\|talk]]) 17:35, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
		+
		+	The explanation mentions the color of the actual physical dress, and I question the relevance of this. The question is not the color of the dress itself but the color of the photograph. (Furthermore, the displayed color of the photograph will vary depending on the monitor its being displayed on, potentially making the whole issue of optical illusions a moot point)

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:35, 29 November 2017
Line 104:		Line 104:

	It may seem petty, but this site usually points out small errors Randall makes and I think there is one in the mouse over text. I'm not native in English, so it's likely I'm wrong. But »''only to find there was unexpectedly disagreement over whether the thing they'd revealed was a goat or a car''« doesn't look right to me. I'd want it to be either »»''only to find there was unexpected disagreement over whether the thing they'd revealed was a goat or a car''« or »''only to find there unexpectedly was disagreement over whether the thing they'd revealed was a goat or a car''«. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.134.178\|162.158.134.178]] 17:04, 29 November 2017 (UTC)		It may seem petty, but this site usually points out small errors Randall makes and I think there is one in the mouse over text. I'm not native in English, so it's likely I'm wrong. But »''only to find there was unexpectedly disagreement over whether the thing they'd revealed was a goat or a car''« doesn't look right to me. I'd want it to be either »»''only to find there was unexpected disagreement over whether the thing they'd revealed was a goat or a car''« or »''only to find there unexpectedly was disagreement over whether the thing they'd revealed was a goat or a car''«. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.134.178\|162.158.134.178]] 17:04, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
		+
		+	:I'm not a native English speaker either, and I also take a little longer to understand that phrase because of the way it's worded. Your first suggestion looks better. The second one, though, not as much. [[User:GuiRitter\|GuiRitter]] ([[User talk:GuiRitter\|talk]]) 17:35, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:04, 29 November 2017
Line 102:		Line 102:

	The regular 'dress' looks white and gold to me, but this looks blue and brown. Aargh! {{unsigned\|Jadzia.dax}}		The regular 'dress' looks white and gold to me, but this looks blue and brown. Aargh! {{unsigned\|Jadzia.dax}}
		+
		+	It may seem petty, but this site usually points out small errors Randall makes and I think there is one in the mouse over text. I'm not native in English, so it's likely I'm wrong. But »''only to find there was unexpectedly disagreement over whether the thing they'd revealed was a goat or a car''« doesn't look right to me. I'd want it to be either »»''only to find there was unexpected disagreement over whether the thing they'd revealed was a goat or a car''« or »''only to find there unexpectedly was disagreement over whether the thing they'd revealed was a goat or a car''«. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.134.178\|162.158.134.178]] 17:04, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:40, 10 December 2015
Line 58:		Line 58:

	: Thank you so much! That is the only good explanation I've read. The colour correction introduced by the cellphone is massive. But I still don't know how anyone can see the gold as being black unless their computer monitor is completely maladjusted. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.249.182\|108.162.249.182]] 04:30, 28 February 2015 (UTC)		: Thank you so much! That is the only good explanation I've read. The colour correction introduced by the cellphone is massive. But I still don't know how anyone can see the gold as being black unless their computer monitor is completely maladjusted. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.249.182\|108.162.249.182]] 04:30, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
		+
		+	:The first time I saw the alleged image of the same dress by the manufacturer (which is clearly to me black and blue), I couldn't believe they where the same dresses, because, by looking at the viral image, I can't imagine a lightning scenario and brain correction that would cause black to look gold. The camera adjustment screw up makes sense to make them the same dress. Therefore, I hereby challenge someone to buy the black and blue dress and take a photo of it, doing whatever necessary to make the black look gold. [[Special:Contributions/188.114.99.189\|188.114.99.189]] 22:40, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

	Is it possible that there's a connection between this comic and [[690: Semicontrolled Demolition]]? Some discussions I've seen about this topic involve the choice between white/gold and blue/black, so Randall coloured his dress gold/blue. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.122\|108.162.216.122]] 16:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)		Is it possible that there's a connection between this comic and [[690: Semicontrolled Demolition]]? Some discussions I've seen about this topic involve the choice between white/gold and blue/black, so Randall coloured his dress gold/blue. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.122\|108.162.216.122]] 16:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)