I always saw blue and black, no idea how anyone could see it as white and gold unless they were colorblind tbh
the original photo was much more faded than the one posted here, so people's colour perception depended on how yellow/blue they perceived the photo's light to be tinted, and how bright/dark their screens were.
In every configuration, every lighting condition, every monitor, every color manipulation, I see that picture as white and gold. Not once have I managed to see the blue dress, except in separate pictures of the same dress.
I understand the actual dress is blue and I understand the color theory, but even with the picture very heavily tinted blue my brain still interprets the dress to be in shadow and therefore white.
I've always been able to see both colors of the dress by changing the size of the image, so the phenomenon "made sense" to me, but I legitimately have no idea how that image is supposed to explain it lol. There's two different colored dresses with seemingly random parts highlighted with different colored boxes.. are they supposed to look the same in the highlighted area or something?
The connected boxes show that the same color appears on both sides; however, the colored boxes provide context based on the lighting which is further reenforced by the rest of the dress outside the box.
Technology Connections did a video about brown that has the same color of orange on a background that cycles between white and black and the color of orange seems to shift to brown or orange depending on the background.
Id never seen this image before but it's the clearest and most intuitive illustration of the effect I've seen.
I've seen the original one back when it was first popular, still couldn't understand the white and gold people
That one is easy, on the left is black and blue and on the right white and gold
I am not colourblind afaik and I could not for the life of me see it as blue and black. The lighting just made no sense for that to be the case.
It looks like the dress is in a less lit part with a very strong backlight.
thats because the OG** photo** (left) it is gold lace on a "white dress" (with a blue tint lighting effect etc) while IRL the dress is black & blue. right side is the edited OP photo. the difference is 'night and day' and if these all look the same i've got some news for you. ........... 
You've got it backwards, when this happened people found the exact dress and it was blue and black, but the lighting can make it look white and gold.
Blue and gold maybe, but white and gold doesn't even make sense to me. For a white dress to look blue it needs to be under blue light, which would cause the gold highlights to be dark with a blue sheen. The missing blue sheen indicates that either it's gold under natural lighting or black under yellowish lighting.
NO we are NOT doing this again please!
The bait be baiting!
Its just grey, never understood that fight it's just grey and light grey.
Nobody knows you're a dog on the internet
Yeah we do, it's just polite not to mention it.
This photo does look blue and black to me but when it was a big controversy, it looked white and gold to me
It‘s because the OP picture is a white balance adjusted version.
This is the original:
This fucks with my brain so much. The last time I looked at the original pic, it was white and gold and nothing I did could change that. Looking at this one just now, it was white and gold again but this time as I started scrolling down it shifted into blue and black and now that's how it's staying.
That looks white and gold to me
Same. What the fuck, brain?
What in the hell, this is the first time I've been able to actually see it as blue and black
If you look at the orginal on wikipedia the image is much brighter:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_dress
E: FWIW in case anyone is interested, I've found if you activate the Blue Light Filter mode on your device it looks white and gold, where as if you deactivate it, it looks blue and black.
I remember, that I was able to understand people, who saw it as white and gold, but now I can't. I just see black and blue. I don't even know which parts are supposed to be gold.
The black part is gold, the blue part is white. The wiki image is the original and its easier (at least to me) to jump between the two different colour combinations.
It help to look at the edge of the sleeve on the left, without focusing on the rest of the dress its self. This causes the colours to swap back and forth for me.
Wait... It was actually white and gold the whole time? I never saw it as white and gold
No?
The dress was confirmed as a royal blue "Lace Bodycon Dress" from the retailer Roman Originals. The dress is black and blue; although it was available in three other colours (red, pink, and ivory, each with black lace), a white and gold version was not available at the time.
To illustrate:
(I didn't expect such deep blue. Guess the exposure on the camera was ridiculously out of whack.)
the photo yes but not the dress itself, take the og photo from the wiki into any photoshop with a color picker, and look at the points it marks it on the color range (it shows it between yellow and red nowhere near any blue) its gold stripes in the photo. the "white dress" parts do show up with light blue tint, it all just because of the terrible back light overexposed effect. the real dress yes is blue and black, but the photo is gold stripes with light-blueish white dress.
I wouldn't call this "nowhere near blue":
the 'black' parts are gold in the photo yes they are in fact "nowhere near blue" the part you zoomed in on is the blue/white parts that have a blue tint. 
...
Did you pick that colour from the part that's black IRL? Of course that won't be blue.
Edit: Here's the original picture with max saturation. It clearly shows the blue parts as blue:
I like the people arguing with the wiki here. That fully explains what it is and why you might see it as different.
Blows my mind! I saw black first...then blue. Wow.
It's cobalt and navy.
It's amazing that pic caused an uproar.
Welcome to Lemmy Shitpost. Here you can shitpost to your hearts content.
Anything and everything goes. Memes, Jokes, Vents and Banter. Though we still have to comply with lemmy.world instance rules. So behave!
1. Be Respectful
Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.
Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.
...
2. No Illegal Content
Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.
That means:
-No promoting violence/threats against any individuals
-No CSA content or Revenge Porn
-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)
...
3. No Spam
Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.
-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.
-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.
-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers
-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.
...
4. No Porn/Explicit
Content
-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.
-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.
...
5. No Enciting Harassment,
Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts
-Do not Brigade other Communities
-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.
-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.
-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.
...
6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.
...
If you see content that is a breach of the rules, please flag and report the comment and a moderator will take action where they can.
Also check out:
Partnered Communities:
1.Memes
10.LinuxMemes (Linux themed memes)
Reach out to
All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules. Striker
