I posted this @ general section, but maybe it`s slightly offtopic
Someone in the comments said this is rendered with Cycles, could it?
reminds me a bit of the blue/gold dress debate 
It certainly looks like the sort of thing that Cycles can do well: very even, soft, “photographic soft-box style” lighting, with great attention to the indirect fall of light. That’s something that Cycles’ algorithms handle very well. It’s a fundamentally different take on “rendering something.”
Although, that having been said, remember that it is never strictly necessary to just use the Cycles renderer to produce an image. You can sometimes get terrific results by combining the efforts of several different renderers. Blender, for example, provides three: BI, Cycles, and OpenGL. All referencing exactly the same models, coordinate systems, cameras and so-on. Yes, it takes more planning and perhaps more work, but rendering is not “one size fits all.”
It’s possible in cycles, just that it might take a while to fully resolve the caustics (though I’m not fond of the website choice).
Although, that having been said, remember that it is never strictly necessary to just use the Cycles renderer to produce an image. You can sometimes get terrific results by combining the efforts of several different renderers. Blender, for example, provides three: BI, Cycles, and OpenGL. All referencing exactly the same models, coordinate systems, cameras and so-on. Yes, it takes more planning and perhaps more work, but rendering is not “one size fits all.”
Most people though just find it easier to render one image and be done with it rather than having to bang out multiple images and combine them (unless of course it was through renderlayers). Currently, I don’t think Blender has the capability to automatically switch to a different engine on a per-renderlayer basis.
This is certainly possible, but more importantly, greetings fellow 9gagger.