• AlexanderTheDead@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    So the idea is that the dress is, what, covered in an exactly dress shaped and sized amount of shade? Or else why wouldn’t we see shade anywhere else?

    • auraithx@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      Because shade works in 3D and it’s not clear how far away the background is from this picture. But yes, ‘dress shaped and size amounts of shade’ exist; trees, could be on a shaded balcony, etc.

      • AlexanderTheDead@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        Maybe I’m just an elevated being but I can clearly tell that the righthand side is a mirror on a wall and that the tan below it is where the floor meets the wall. Because of that, I can roughly make out the angle and know that we should be seeing some shade on the side if any existed in the first place.

        Does that make sense?

        • auraithx@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          No because it’s your subconscious, otherwise you’d have no problem understanding why it’s was ambigious. (Same applies for elevated beings - they can grasp differences in human colour perception).

          And either way, even if your assumptions were true you still don’t know the angle of the sun, potential coverings, etc. You can’t predict the shade without that info so the logical choice would be to use the colours the pixels display.

          • AlexanderTheDead@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 days ago

            The potential coverings would have to be exactly the shape of the dress because of the sleeves, no? We would see the shade passing underneath? Like onto the obvious clothing rack underneath the left sleeve?