Curious Tranformation Illusion

Let me see if I can dig up something I believe we haven’t already showcased before. It’s just that Sandro Del Prete’s paintings sometimes resemble each other so greatly, I can’t be exactly sure if I already blogged about this one. Either way, his transforming hands motive isn’t  something we haven’t already seen.

Still, take a look how seamlessly Sandro managed to differentiate figures shown on your right. What’s so interesting about it, is that when you focus on the figure on your left there’s no mistake it pictures a human hand. If you observe the right one, there’s no point denying we see a young lady holding her hands up in the air. Yet if you compare the two figures, it’s not easy to see any obvious differences. So how did he do that? It must be the surrounding context of each figure, if you ask me…

Looking forward to hear you ideas! If someone discovers this one was already featured, be sure to bring it up!

49 Replies to “Curious Tranformation Illusion”

    1. actually, there is no likeness in both pictures. The one on the left is a woman and if you look at the hips of the woman youll see there is more than three differences between the hips of the woman and the sleeve of the man. the artist makes the shadows of the fingers lighter in the hand to show the fingers and makes it darker in the woman to show the hair. the cotour of the body of the woman is totally different from the one of the hand and what looks like a face in the hand picture is just a shadow that the artits shows (actually, the shadow doesnt look anything like a face. the shirt in of the woman in the upper part havs a neck and shows the fabric of it while the hand just shows the normal lines of the hands and what looks like hair behind the hand is just another shadow.

    1. Yes, Koa, but if you cover the legs of the one on the right, then look at the face, you can see the eyes more vividly.

  1. To me, the image on the left has a face that is more blurred, giving a softer focus on the woman’s image than the hand. With greater detail, the focus becomes on the image of the woman.

  2. yeah, I thought (at first) there were 2 ladies, but after you’d mentioned the 1 on the left was a hand I (finally) saw the difference .. NICE !, I’m pretty good at spotting differences, but that one got me.

  3. Very interesting! I see the differences. In case anyone has some trouble, here they are:


    -The face of the woman is much more clear and defined
    -The wrist of the hand is much more curved like a waist in the second picture
    -The fingers are different in the second picture
    -The cuff of the shirt become much more flowing and shaped
    -The wrist is thinner (also giving it the appearance of a woman’s waist, as said above)
    -And, lastly, there is a pair of feet sticking out from the paper. Kind of surprised only one other person posted this.

  4. Detail and context. With the feet below and the holding the page, it adds context.

    And the face and hands hold stronger detail on the right than the left.

    There could also be a difference in the shading around the breast, but I can’t tell if that is something helping see the figure, or if it appears that way BECAUSE I see the figure.

  5. Because we see the feet under the second one we automatically figure its a lady without even thinking, also when u look at the first one the face is shaded in more so it is hard to make out the face

  6. at first im like a hand!
    and then i look at the feet
    after that i think
    where did the hand GO!

  7. as pointed out earlier the face is more defined,
    what would be the shirt(left) in one and the skirt(right) in the other is that the skirt is skin tight to the body and the other is more fluffy like a sleeve. In the right one there is more shadows in the sleeve for legs as well as a pair of feet protruding out the bottom.
    The on the left the fingers are clearly defined and the right side is clearly hands

  8. I’ve been a fan for a long time now, and this is my first submission.
    Not sure if this qualifies, but I saw this photo of Pippa Middleton carrying Kate Middleton’s wedding dress train during the recent royal wedding. When I first saw this image I had to doubletake, as I thought I saw something that wasn’t there, therefore, something of an illusion is set in place.
    The way the fabric is held has caused what looks like the brides leg to be exposed, but is in fact a fold of the train.
    Keep up the good work!

  9. Well! It’s left hands job! Because they both
    right hands. I also see one hand bend finger
    touching the paper edg. I’m left hander too.
    Just like eyes cannot see themselves.May be
    all right hander missed :))RG

  10. thats pretty good artwork. im a lady so saw double hands and when i saw the legs I focused on the bottom of the painting- how it looks like the floor and painting are one. then I seen the lady in the one on the right. the image on the other hand looks like a dude with breast.

  11. I didn’t see hands until I read it. There ARE differences. A little darker here to hide the finger separation, a stronger line there to imply cleavage and facial features, a bit sharper contour to make the shadow into hair… And of course a pair of feet to make sure in case you are bling to the more subtle hints.

  12. what a wonderful illusion… it had me guessing… i would love to hear more audio illusions if pausible?

  13. hey, what is the woman holding in her hands?
    it looks to me like a news paper both im not sure, besides, i dont think the woman haves three hands………… hahahahahahahahahahaha

  14. i saw the woman first, , but once i realized it was a hand, i had to look REALLY hard before seeing the woman again… weird

  15. Well in one of the pictures the figure has legs n it just seems to look like a lady posing cause if you look closely, the “fingers” are missing which make up her arms n hands where as the other picture just looks like a hand with the image of the lady painted on it to the best of its capabilities. Atleast thats what I see here lol…

  16. All I could see were two ladies, one blurred and one in focus–no hand. I put it aside and then looked again. No hand. Today I took another look and there it was, the blurred lady on the left turned into a right hand. Amazing!

  17. For a few minutes, I only saw 2 woman. The only reason I figured it out when I did is that I noticed the figure on the left did not have any legs. If it hadn’t been for that, I might not have figured it out without reading a few comments! There are a few more things that are different about the 2 figures. I think that it’s very interesting how all of the differences between the two can be overlooked by so many people.

  18. It’s clearly a man’s hand on the left and a woman on the right. They are not the same…it’s not fooling the eye at all. It’s clever design, but not an illusion.

  19. it’ the shadows nd the “waist” nd a bit rounder here nd there.
    its really gr8!! makes me laugh. love it. thanks a bunch.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *