What color are they?

[Athene]

White or light-colored shoes with little reflective doohickeys is what I see.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I just tried looking at the image again. I moved about to look at it from different angles, and the shoe still looks black. What else you got?

Boru

Boru, does someone pay you to be a constant contrarian to every post I make?

No, it's a service I'm happy to provide for free.

It isn't one factor that can cause someone to see something differently as far as color, but multiple factors.

Not what you said earlier.

1. Light refracting off the object and the difference between what gets absorbed and what bounces back to your eye.

2. Angle.

Yes, I know what colour is, but I'm asking why people perceive the colours in the photograph differently.  It's the same photo, so reflection/refraction isn't the answer, and I've already demonstrated that, in this case, it can't be the angle.

3. Point of view. Just like an 18 wheeler that is two miles in front of you on a flat highway is going to look small compared to the one right next to you. The person in that 18 wheeler 2 miles in front of you is going to see you as small too until they approach you. 

That perspective, not colour. And isn't 'point of view' just another way of saying 'angle', at least as it regards the photograph in question?

4. Even imperfect eyes. If you have "color blindness", which is a horrible term, and does not mean one only sees in black and white, but if you have that malady, your eyes can see any given color slightly different than others. 

Yes, the correct term is 'colour vision deficiency' and I'm familiar - two of my brothers have it.  But it doesn't seem to apply in the case of this photo, since people are only seeing black or white, which would mean that 50% of the people viewing it have the deficiency.  That seems unlikely.

I cannot address the example given.

Then why did you?

I can say however it is no different seeing shapes in clouds.

It's HUGELY different that seeing shapes in clouds.  That's called 'pareidolia' and has nothing to do with colour.

If you want to see something badly enough you will.

I don't really think that applies.  I doubt that a significant number of the people looking at the shoe did so thinking, 'I hope I see black!!'

The original post(the person who wrote the story in the link.  Link s simply another attention seeker just like that stupid dress bullshit.

It a human interest story.  I don't think it's your place to assign motives to the reporter or her editor.

Boru

[Brian37]

Boru, does someone pay you to be a constant contrarian to every post I make?

No, it's a service I'm happy to provide for free.

It isn't one factor that can cause someone to see something differently as far as color, but multiple factors.

Not what you said earlier.

1. Light refracting off the object and the difference between what gets absorbed and what bounces back to your eye.

2. Angle.

Yes, I know what colour is, but I'm asking why people perceive the colours in the photograph differently.  It's the same photo, so reflection/refraction isn't the answer, and I've already demonstrated that, in this case, it can't be the angle.

3. Point of view. Just like an 18 wheeler that is two miles in front of you on a flat highway is going to look small compared to the one right next to you. The person in that 18 wheeler 2 miles in front of you is going to see you as small too until they approach you. 

That perspective, not colour. And isn't 'point of view' just another way of saying 'angle', at least as it regards the photograph in question?

4. Even imperfect eyes. If you have "color blindness", which is a horrible term, and does not mean one only sees in black and white, but if you have that malady, your eyes can see any given color slightly different than others. 

Yes, the correct term is 'colour vision deficiency' and I'm familiar - two of my brothers have it.  But it doesn't seem to apply in the case of this photo, since people are only seeing black or white, which would mean that 50% of the people viewing it have the deficiency.  That seems unlikely.

I cannot address the example given.

Then why did you?

I can say however it is no different seeing shapes in clouds.

It's HUGELY different that seeing shapes in clouds.  That's called 'pareidolia' and has nothing to do with colour.

If you want to see something badly enough you will.

I don't really think that applies.  I doubt that a significant number of the people looking at the shoe did so thinking, 'I hope I see black!!'

The original post(the person who wrote the story in the link.  Link s simply another attention seeker just like that stupid dress bullshit.

It a human interest story.  I don't think it's your place to assign motives to the reporter.

Boru

If I am giving that "reporter" any slack, they are just another sucker falling for a fluff piece.

Once when I was working at a major pizza joint, one of the chicken wing drumlets that was fatty on the side,  came out looking like the shape of a cross. So that must mean Jesus is real? What if I had saved it, took it to reporters and a reporter said, "Hey look at this" and did a story on it? This is simply more seeing "Godzilla" in the clouds. 

It is nonsense.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

No, it's a service I'm happy to provide for free.


Not what you said earlier.


Yes, I know what colour is, but I'm asking why people perceive the colours in the photograph differently.  It's the same photo, so reflection/refraction isn't the answer, and I've already demonstrated that, in this case, it can't be the angle.


That perspective, not colour. And isn't 'point of view' just another way of saying 'angle', at least as it regards the photograph in question?


Yes, the correct term is 'colour vision deficiency' and I'm familiar - two of my brothers have it.  But it doesn't seem to apply in the case of this photo, since people are only seeing black or white, which would mean that 50% of the people viewing it have the deficiency.  That seems unlikely.


Then why did you?


It's HUGELY different that seeing shapes in clouds.  That's called 'pareidolia' and has nothing to do with colour.


I don't really think that applies.  I doubt that a significant number of the people looking at the shoe did so thinking, 'I hope I see black!!'


It a human interest story.  I don't think it's your place to assign motives to the reporter.

Boru

If I am giving that "reporter" any slack, they are just another sucker falling for a fluff piece.

Once when I was working at a major pizza joint, one of the chicken wing drumlets that was fatty on the side,  came out looking like the shape of a cross. So that must mean Jesus is real? What if I had saved it, took it to reporters and a reporter said, "Hey look at this" and did a story on it? This is simply more seeing "Godzilla" in the clouds. 

It is nonsense.

And you have no curiosity as to why people perceive a difference colour in the same image? 

Boru

[Brian37]

Even the article admits it is an optical illusion.

---

If I am giving that "reporter" any slack, they are just another sucker falling for a fluff piece.

Once when I was working at a major pizza joint, one of the chicken wing drumlets that was fatty on the side,  came out looking like the shape of a cross. So that must mean Jesus is real? What if I had saved it, took it to reporters and a reporter said, "Hey look at this" and did a story on it? This is simply more seeing "Godzilla" in the clouds. 

It is nonsense.

And you have no curiosity as to why people perceive a difference colour in the same image? 

Boru

In what context? Psychology, biology, medical, sure. But not pop media Stewart from Mad TV "Look what I can do", no.

Someone created an illusion. So? Humans can easily be fooled, still not news.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Even the article admits it is an optical illusion.

Of COURSE it's an illusion - no one is for one moment claiming that there is some sort of magic involved causing the shoe to change from black to white and back again.

But WHY is it illusory?  Might not a better understand of why this happens lead to help for people with vision or learning disabilities?  If there's something is our brains causing this difference in perception, isn't that something worth knowing?

Boru

[Brian37]

Even the article admits it is an optical illusion.

Of COURSE it's an illusion - no one is for one moment claiming that there is some sort of magic involved causing the shoe to change from black to white and back again.

But WHY is it illusory?  Might not a better understand of why this happens lead to help for people with vision or learning disabilities?  If there's something is our brains causing this difference in perception, isn't that something worth knowing?

Boru

Yea and? The dress bullshit made me want to puke too. 

There is a way to create curiosity and a way not to. Pop media is simply out for a buck. My explanation to you as to why illusions like this work is what is important, not that someone wants to sell a controversy just to see it.

This story isn't a "Here is how science works". It is more like P.T. Barnum, "There's a sucker born every minute.'

[brewer]

Sigh,.............. all I can hear is Yanny.

[arewethereyet]

I see ugly shoes. I doubt they'd be less ugly if in a different color.

[no one]

They're all pink on the inside.

---

arewrthereyet:
I see ugly shoes. I doubt they'd be less ugly if in a different color.

You young lady, just won this thread.