How is this mirror illusion done?

[ilzho]

This is a famous pic and I have heard that the artist said that it wasn't photoshopped.

I think the artist used the clone tool or something similar to get to the background on the mirror. 2 pictures, one with the artist and one without.

Was this mirror photoshopped or were mulitlpe mirrors used?

Thank you,

David

[diverhank]

I think it's definitely photoshopped.  The mirror isn't big enough to hide the girl's entire body.  Something like this would take me less than 5 minutes to do in photoshop and I'm not even an expert.

[dhammond1]

First thing that stands out - there is no reflection of the back side of the girl's leg or her fingertips in the miror. That is a physical impossibility. What else was done, not sure, just that the photo has been manipulated... 

[Waddizzle]

It does not necessarily have to been photoshopped.

The girl could have her shoulders turned, to hide her body, which she seems to be doing.  The mirror seems to be leaning slightly towards the camera, which could explain why we do not see her right leg in the apparent reflection.  I think the mirror has been carefully angled to reflect what is behind and to the right of the photographer.

[dhammond1]

The mirror has to look over the girl's leg to see the grass, which means her leg's reflection has to be in the mirror.. 

[Waddizzle]

---

@dhammond1wrote:

The mirror has to look over the girl's leg to see the grass, which means her leg's reflection has to be in the mirror.. 

---

Which leg?

I do not see that.  The mirror is leaning toward the camera, so it would hide the right leg, and the left seems to be out of view.  If anything, the fingertips not being visible could be an issue, but the frame is also fairly thick.

[dhammond1]

Have someone try and recreate the picture without using photoshop. There is no way a person can sit on the ground cross legged with an oval mirror in their lap, held by their hands and not have a portion of their body visible in the reflection.  

[kvbarkley]

And why would the mirror show what is *behind her*, it is clearly a double exposure

[Waddizzle]

---

@kvbarkleywrote:

And why would the mirror show what is *behind her*, it is clearly a double exposure

---

You could be right about a double exposure. But, I do not think what you see in the mirror is necessarily what is behind her.

[JonKline]

This is a photomanipulation. It might be close to an actual photo, but mirror effect aside, vignetting and the glow around skin tones, you're not getting that in camera, even with a Petzval or similar. The mirror reflection is done digitally, too.

If you're that curious, you should ask the photographer! https://www.laurawilliamsart.co.uk/

Here's another one of her shots that plays with frames inside the frame.