Powered by KikBooks Widget

By on May 6, 2011, with 49 Comments

Curious Tranformation IllusionLet 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 Responses
  1. Ciaran says:

    They both looked like attractive young ladies to me at first glance. :)

    • daniel says:

      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.

  2. chris says:

    the face of the lady at the right is more clearer and vivid.

    • Koaieus says:

      Maaaybe because that lady also has legs :P

    • Alex says:

      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.

  3. Dave says:

    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.

  4. Rick says:

    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.

  5. cooolioooo!!! a hand and a hottie!

  6. Artemis Speer says:

    It took me awhile but I saw the hand and the woman on the left has no feet

  7. bets says:

    I think it’s neat how similar two totally different object can be.

  8. AppaloosaGirl says:

    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.

  9. servilan42 says:

    Wow it took a few seconds to realize what’s going on. Great illusion!

  10. Sero says:

    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.

  11. MSSTLove says:

    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

  12. neko says:

    i think part of it is the feet on the women.

  13. plmethvin says:

    It took me a long time to see the hand. D: I don’t know why that would be.

  14. Voigt_Meister says:

    Cool. Someone sure has a hairy hand…

  15. some random guy you'l never meet says:

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

  16. Jimy says:


  17. Jim says:

    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

  18. Alinda says:

    Another nice detail: the hand on the left is holding the paper on the right, it turns the paper.

  19. Aaron Young says:

    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!

  20. rookie says:

    From sleeping to dancing

  21. Brandy Espy says:

    That is a really hairy hand

  22. pokemon boy1 says:

    i saw that it was a hand before i read the paragraph.

  23. Roger says:

    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

  24. Care Bear says:

    Now that is really thought provoking.

  25. Dolphin says:

    He tweaked the hand ever so slightly in so many places,and made it look like a hand and a woman.

  26. marcy says:

    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.

  27. Kimon Frousios says:

    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.

  28. Carl says:

    Reminds me of Dali’s painting Metamorphosis of Narcissus.

  29. Esteban Serrano says:

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

  30. Dragon Ball says:

    Is that Rosie Palm?

  31. christal says:

    that is a very hairy hand :)

  32. daniel says:

    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

  33. Aianna says:

    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

  34. Luz says:

    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…

  35. Annette says:

    The left hand on the one on the left is palm down. The left hand on one on the right is palm up

  36. Cara says:

    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!

  37. Yerk says:

    I believe that the one on the right is simply darker.

  38. ZL123 says:

    They both looked like ladies to me, except the feet on the first picture! :O

  39. E-Man55 says:

    I think it’s the face of the left one that differs the two figures.

  40. David Blair says:

    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.

  41. the women on the right has more detail in her face so i think thats y u see a women more on the right than the left.

  42. CJ says:

    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.

  43. diana says:

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

Speak Your Mind

You can add some images too.