Remember Josh Sommers? He was the artist that created all the impossible CG object (Part I and Part II), and those marvelous Escheresques (Part I). The name for this article is Escheresques as well (Part II). The name stands as a tribute to optical illusion master M.C. Escher. These images were all done with help of some 3D photo editing program, which is irrelevant, since the outcome is to be observed as a computer art. Which of these images you like the most? Have you connected each one with its original Escher pair? If you don’t recognize all of them, I suggest visiting “Inspired by Escher” optical illusion category, where you have a good chance of learning which images were inspirational for Josh.
(9 votes)
Loading ...
In the fourth one, the rail that should be closer to the observer is behind the other rail. I really don’t understand what was so hard about that.
the third 1 has an illusion in it…
Spoiler:how can the man take a picture without a camera?
I like 5, 6, and 7. The others I think aren’t really optical illusions, if so, not very good ones. 5, 6, and 7 are amazing though.
the third picture confuzzles me
because where is the camera surely that would be reflected XD
but i dont get how the 4th one is an illusion anybody know?
i don’t get the third one but the forth one, if you look close, you can see that the left bars are behind the ones on th right side.
Too obvious that he just cut up the pictures and pasted them in weird places to make them look cool.
Bo-ring.
OK, I think that the third one is an illusion because you should be able to see the camera in the reflection, but you can’t.
How is the third one possible? How can the picture be taken, but the camera not appear in the reflection? Amazing!
ok the third one is the fact you cant see the camera and the fact that in the reflection hes holding the ornament with his right hand, but his thumb is showing that hes actually holding it with his left.
I don’t get the 3rd, 5th or last ones……..?
3rd one: either he can’t take the picture without a camera, or he is holding the ornament with his left hand in reality, but in the reflection, he is holding it in his right hand.
4th one: the railing goes behind the other legs of the railing in the background. Also, the foreground and background of the picture is blurry, while the middle ground is in focus
5th one: Personally i thought this was obvious… the columns on the right, if you follow them, appear to go into the ceiling of the columns on the left.
HINT: For the sidewalk one, don’t look at the sidewalk, look at the railings
4th one: The fact that the middle is clear while the rest are blurry is a type of photography called tilt-shift miniature faking. Creates really gorgeous pictures sometimes. (:
The third one looks like it is a Sculpture.
The hand looks fake, and maybe the ‘reflection’ is, in fact, just a painting.
If this theory is correct- the painter is very talented!
The hand looks weird- unreal.
Also the black background would not be pitch black- it would be at least a bit brighter. And if the artist has used some type of Photoshop technique (which I highly doubt- it ruins the art of the picture)- then whos saying he didn’t Photoshop the rest of it.
No I still believe that is a picture of a sculpture, and his ‘reflection’ is painted on.
Another thing to take into consideration is that the hand and arm is on an angle in the photo. So the photo could possibly have been taken by a camera in the room.
Actually, by looking at the other baubles- like the red one, the man is certainly standing there- though it looks slightly like he is holding a black camera.
I’m very confused.
its obvious that the camera cant be seen in the third pic cuz the cam is a vampire, duuuuuh =)
oooooor maybe the cam is painted to look like the background hmmmm??? what do you think about that???