'Before' And 'After' Makeup Photos Ignite Debate

A recent set of photos on Reddit is causing quite a stir. It shows a before and after image of a woman with the simple caption “Make-up. That’s it.” The images are so wildly different many people would doubt that it’s even the same person. The make-up techniques employed use a contouring technique, which create shadows and depths in places where there might not actually be any. This makes her nose thinner, her forehead smaller and less round, and gives her more defined cheekbones. The general foundation also helps with the light reflecting off her forehead in the first pictures, which makes her looks sweaty even though she may not have been the moment the photo was taken.


Photo via: Reddit

There’s a little bit more at play here than just the make-up, however. Her hair is curly, which frames her made-up face wonderfully and makes it stand out. She’s also sitting up much straighter, which any great portraiture photographer will tell you makes a world of difference in how someone comes across in a photo. Good posture makes the subject look taller, more confident, and improves the final outcome of the portrait. Those two things in addition to her make-up make her go from an ordinary girl to someone who looks like a supermodel. If her hair was kept straight and she was slumping the make-up might have still been impressive, but the end result may not have been as dramatic.

Another factor in improving the woman’s appearance is a simple angling of her face. This can change someones appearance with or without make-up. In the first picture, neither of her ears are visible, but in the second her right ear is shown indicating that she is turned slightly to the left. Typical portraiture photography tends to avoid photographing subjects head on as perfect symmetry is generally uninteresting. In the second shot her hair is parted a little more to the side with some of it tucked behind her right ear while she turns slightly to the left.

Further on in the Reddit thread a user posted another example of how a few small things such as angles and posture can make a huge impact on someone’s appearance. Australian personal trainer Melanie Ventura slumped over in her first picture letting her stomach protrude over her tight red swimsuit bottoms. In 15 minutes she applied body glow and make up, swapped out her tight red bottoms for larger more slimming black ones, and popped her hip out in the photo to give her body some angles. She also applied make-up and changed her hair much like the woman in the first series of photographs, albeit not to the dramatic extent that the first woman has done. All of these things combined changed her appearance incredibly rapidly.

All of these skills are employed by photographers from traditional portrait sittings all the way up to high fashion photography shoots. These are tried and true tricks of the trade that have been practiced pretty much since portrait photography was founded. The next time you are about to step in front of a camera for a portrait take a moment to powder your nose and maybe put on some eyeliner to make your eyes pop. When the photographer tells you to look slightly to the left or right, sit up straighter, or tilt your head a little bit, you should listen to them. These tricks will make a huge difference.

Note: Link for second example: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2408384...-transformation.html

Scary difference when you think about this

In the morning you role over AND.... "who the heck are you!?"


Nice Photoshop work

I think she's beautiful either way. Reducing the shine with powder, having her straighten up and angle her face, and maybe doing something with her hair are all that's really needed to make her look better. All the rest makes her not look like her anymore. She doesn't need her nose or forehead shaped differently. Just... sit up and put on some powder and you're good.

You mean to say makeup and hair make a difference to how you look?

Were the shots taken with the same lens? I seems as if the one on the left was taken with a wider lens than the one on the right. Any thoughts?

John Landolfi wrote: Were the shots taken with the same lens? I seems as if the one on the left was taken with a wider lens than the one on the right. Any thoughts?

Probably taken with a phone.

Gump wrote: In the morning you role over AND.... "who the heck are you!?"


Nice Photoshop work

You beat me to me on this!

Stealthy Ninja wrote:

John Landolfi wrote: Were the shots taken with the same lens? I seems as if the one on the left was taken with a wider lens than the one on the right. Any thoughts?

Probably taken with a phone.

But the difference in focal length seems pretty obvious. And the one on the left shows what look like clear WA type distortion.

What a big difference!

John Landolfi wrote: But the difference in focal length seems pretty obvious. And the one on the left shows what look like clear WA type distortion.

Admittedly not an expert, and I haven't overlaid the images in PS to mess with them, but the horizontal distance between the bulbs above the mirror seems quite consistent between the two images. The only real difference I can see is the distance to the subject appears to have changed slightly. What criteria are you using to conclude the focal length change is obvious?

garyrhook wrote:

John Landolfi wrote: But the difference in focal length seems pretty obvious. And the one on the left shows what look like clear WA type distortion.

Admittedly not an expert, and I haven't overlaid the images in PS to mess with them, but the horizontal distance between the bulbs above the mirror seems quite consistent between the two images. The only real difference I can see is the distance to the subject appears to have changed slightly. What criteria are you using to conclude the focal length change is obvious?

I'm certainly no expert, either, Gary. But, while horizontal distances in the background seem consistent between the two images, those in the foreground don';t seem to be: the distance between the corners of her mouth and between the inner corners of her eyes seems to be 1/8" larger on the left image than on the right one. That could indicate a wider lens for the left image. It looks to me like the difference between using a 35mm vs a 50mm fairly close to the subject, what I noticed when I experimented with a 35mm f/1.4 and a 50mm f/1.4.
Interested to know what you think.

John Landolfi wrote: I'm certainly no expert, either, Gary. But, while horizontal distances in the background seem consistent between the two images, those in the foreground don';t seem to be: the distance between the corners of her mouth and between the inner corners of her eyes seems to be 1/8" larger on the left image than on the right one. That could indicate a wider lens for the left image. It looks to me like the difference between using a 35mm vs a 50mm fairly close to the subject, what I noticed when I experimented with a 35mm f/1.4 and a 50mm f/1.4.
Interested to know what you think.

OK, yeah, those I see. Wondering if it was a mobile phone that does it's own adjustments? The "after" is certainly more flattering, geometrically speaking. Since the issue here is the makeup, I think they made their point.

garyrhook wrote:

John Landolfi wrote: I'm certainly no expert, either, Gary. But, while horizontal distances in the background seem consistent between the two images, those in the foreground don';t seem to be: the distance between the corners of her mouth and between the inner corners of her eyes seems to be 1/8" larger on the left image than on the right one. That could indicate a wider lens for the left image. It looks to me like the difference between using a 35mm vs a 50mm fairly close to the subject, what I noticed when I experimented with a 35mm f/1.4 and a 50mm f/1.4.
Interested to know what you think.

OK, yeah, those I see. Wondering if it was a mobile phone that does it's own adjustments? The "after" is certainly more flattering, geometrically speaking. Since the issue here is the makeup, I think they made their point.

Yes, but helping your case by exaggerating the difference by using different lenses (I don't believe it's a phone, BTW) isn't cricket, photographically speaking. Classic "Before/After" chicanery...unnecessary, since the make-up point is obviously valid.