Oh good, seems its time to use a cartoon with no production values and notorious for inconsistency as "supporting evidence" again... Shit, why not bring in Frumble and Broadside again as well? Or Moist in Huffer...
The picture looks white and gold. The actual, real life dress was black and blue. And due to how our eyes and brains work, it's possible to engage whatever visual filters we have to tone down the "bleaching" effect of the bright light source to trick ourselves into "seeing" the proper black and blue colours again. Another of those weird optical tricks, like the white and black discs that make you see colours when you spin them.
there is nothing wrong with your fig. g1 show is super inconsistent, and I find g1 box art much easier to use as a basis for colours, as they werent limited with colours at all. yellow: orange: toy colours always follow these colours, but then cartoon panels follow their own rules whenever they feel. yellow-y orange and back to yellow-y If hasbro and 3p have stuck with orange since g1 its pretty fair to say its the correct colour
Lol I can make any fig blue under the right lighting. It’s clearly a weird pic. In the darker areas you can see a bit of orange like in neutral lighting.
Color is literally on a spectrum of frequencies and the collective ranges are purely nominal. There is no one single “red” or “blue”, and Crayola didn’t cover all of the bases even in their biggest box of crayons. Besides which, everyone perceives color slightly differently, some to the point that they are clinically “colorblind”. The argument here really isn’t about orange vs. yellow. It’s about consistency of presentation between media and product, and the expectations that are fulfilled or unfulfilled as a result. Someone saw an image of the toy, and once in hand, it appeared different.
