You missed the whole point. If I take a white dress and then shine a blue lamp on it, then take a photo.The pixels will be 100% blue, but would that mean the dress itself is blue?
If I showed you a picture of a green surface, and asked you what color it is, would you say that it’s white and that there’s probably green light shining on it?
The yellow background could be lit by another window or a different light source, so one could argue we don’t have a good reference to tell. But the point is that the “picture of a thing” is not “the thing” itself, and there is always a possibility that they are different.
You missed the whole point. If I take a white dress and then shine a blue lamp on it, then take a photo.The pixels will be 100% blue, but would that mean the dress itself is blue?
If I showed you a picture of a green surface, and asked you what color it is, would you say that it’s white and that there’s probably green light shining on it?
But you can clearly see that the lighting is bright yellow-white, not blue…
The yellow background could be lit by another window or a different light source, so one could argue we don’t have a good reference to tell. But the point is that the “picture of a thing” is not “the thing” itself, and there is always a possibility that they are different.
That’s… literally not what this phenominon is about, either. Talk about missing the point.
That is literally what the argument is caused by, adaptive perception to lighting conditions.
It’s exactly the point. White fabric will appear blue in blue light, which is why some people see this white dress and think it’s blue.