MrD wrote:
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.
Quote:
violet.jpg
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.
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.
Quote:
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.
