Before-and-after photos: what they can and can’t show

Two photos side by side. On the left, dull skin and deep lines. On the right, a smoother, brighter face. It’s the most convincing kind of skin care ad, because you see it with your own eyes. But a photo can change a lot without the skin changing at all. Here’s what to look for before you trust one.

A photo is a claim

It’s easy to treat a picture as neutral evidence, but advertising rules don’t. UK advertising guidance for cosmetics says photos “should not exaggerate the efficacy of the product” and that advertisers need evidence to back up the impression their images create. An “after” picture is a promise that you can expect something similar.

So a before-and-after photo needs the same scrutiny as a written claim: how was it made, and is it typical?

What can change a photo without changing the skin

Plenty of things that have nothing to do with a cream can add or remove wrinkles, redness and shine.

Lighting

Light coming from the side casts shadows in every fold and line. Light from the front fills them in. A 2021 study in the journal Aesthetic Plastic Surgery tested this directly. Researchers photographed 51 adults in a studio, changing only the angle of the light: straight on, 30°, and 60°. Twenty-seven raters, who didn’t know what was being tested, scored the photos.

At 60°, the same faces were rated as less attractive, and the nasolabial folds (the lines running from the nose to the corners of the mouth) were rated as more severe than in the straight-on photos. The authors concluded that steep light angles have a measurable effect on how a face is judged and should be accounted for when photos are presented.

Same face, same day, no product. Just the light.

Angle and head position

Tilt the chin a little and the skin of the neck and jawline folds differently. A review of clinical photography in facial aesthetics, published in the Journal of Cutaneous and Aesthetic Surgery, warns that “small changes in patient positioning” during photos “can cause dramatic changes in the appearance” of the features being assessed.

Expression

A slight smile deepens the lines around the eyes. A relaxed face softens them. A before photo taken mid-squint and an after photo taken with a neutral face will show “fewer crow’s feet” without any cream.

Camera, distance and flash

That’s why clinical photographers keep the camera, lens and distance fixed. A direct flash “blanches finer details on the skin and also washes out the skin colour,” according to the same clinical photography review. Flash in the after shot, no flash in the before shot, and texture and redness appear to fade.

Make-up, hydration and timing

Make-up, a fresh coat of moisturizer, or a photo taken at a different time of day can all change what the camera sees. Some changes are real but brief. UK advertising regulators once accepted a split-face ad showing skin “treated (in 40 seconds)”, because the image hadn’t been edited and was taken right after application. That’s fair if the ad is honest that the effect is immediate. It’s not the same as a lasting change.

Editing

Then there’s retouching. UK guidance on production techniques in cosmetic ads says minimal general airbrushing is likely acceptable, but not where it exaggerates the very effect being claimed. Its example: an eye cream ad in which retouching reduced the lines and wrinkles in the “after” image. Filters that change skin tone in ads for products claiming to affect skin tone are out for the same reason. The guidance adds that small print disclaimers can’t be used as a “carte blanche” to excuse a misleading picture.

How clinical trials keep photos honest

When researchers use photos as evidence, they try to remove all of the above. The clinical photography review sets out the standard approach:

• Same everything at every visit. “Use the same camera, lens, settings, magnifications, illumination and patient positions at each visit.”
• Soft, even lighting from light boxes set at fixed angles, rather than a flash on the camera.
• A plain background that doesn’t reflect light, usually white, grey or blue.
• Fixed positioning. A tripod, floor markings, and a standard head position lined up using landmarks on the face and ear.
• No make-up, and a set expression for each photo.

The point is simple: if every condition is the same, the only thing left to change is the skin.

What Canadian rules say about images

Canada has no rule written specifically for skin care before-and-after photos, but general advertising law covers pictures as well as words.

The Competition Bureau explains that courts judge an ad by its general impression as well as its literal meaning. One of the examples it gives of a misleading ad is where “the text of the marketing message is literally true, but the accompanying photo or illustration creates a false or misleading impression.” A cream label can make a careful, accurate claim and still mislead if the photo next to it shows an edited miracle.

The industry’s own code agrees. The Canadian Code of Advertising Standards, run by Ad Standards, says ads must not contain misleading “claims, statements, illustrations or representations,” and that asterisks and footnotes must not contradict the more prominent parts of the message. A tiny “image enhanced” note doesn’t undo a big retouched photo.

How to read a before-and-after photo

Next time you see one, check:

• Lighting. Are the shadows falling the same way in both photos? Is one brighter?
• Angle and distance. Is the head at the same tilt, the face the same size in the frame?
• Expression. Neutral in both, or squinting in one?
• Make-up and background. The same in both?
• Time. How long between the photos? Immediately after application, or after weeks of use?
• How many people? One stunning result, or typical results from a study?
• Any editing note? If there is one, how much was changed?

If most of these match, the photo is doing its job. If several don’t, the change you’re seeing may be the photographer’s, not the product’s.

And if you’re looking at before-and-after photos because of a real skin concern, like acne scarring, persistent redness or a changing spot, a photo in an ad isn’t the right guide. See your doctor or pharmacist, who can tell you what’s realistic.

What to remember: a before-and-after photo is a claim, not a window. Light, angle, expression, make-up, timing and editing can all fake a result. Honest photos keep every condition the same, so only the skin can change, and in Canada, a picture that creates a false impression can be misleading even when the words beside it are true.