Evidence and claims
Because cosmetic photography can be made dramatically more flattering without editing anything at all, by changing lighting, angle, distance, expression and make-up alone. A gallery is therefore a poor basis for a decision. What follows is how to read the evidence any clinic shows you, including the ones you are comparing.
Every clinic website carries five-star quotes. They are the least discriminating signal in the entire sector, because there is no cost to producing them and no mechanism verifying that the person quoted exists.
So the space where a wall of five-star quotes would sit is used for something more useful: how the evidence in this field actually works, and how to apply it to any clinic you are considering, including this one.
A testimonial tells you what a clinic wants you to read. A complications protocol tells you what it has prepared for.
Cosmetic photography can be made dramatically more flattering without a single pixel being altered. Anyone comparing clinics should know the mechanisms.
There is a standard for this and it is not difficult to meet. When a clinic shows you images, look for:
A clinic that photographs to this standard is a clinic that measures its own work honourably and is willing to see the results it does not like. That is a meaningful signal about how it practises.
Public reviews are useful, but not in the way most people use them. The star rating is close to worthless because almost every clinic sits between 4.7 and 5.0. The text is where the information is.
Every accreditation worth having maintains a public register you can search. If a claimed accreditation cannot be confirmed on the accrediting body's own website, treat the claim as unverified regardless of how the logo looks.
In most fields, a bad purchase costs you money. Here it can cost you a vascular occlusion, a scar, an eye, or two years of trying to correct something that took twenty minutes to create. The asymmetry between the effort of checking and the cost of not checking is enormous.
It also matters because the sector's marketing is unusually sophisticated and unusually unregulated. The advertising rules exist and are enforced unevenly. Treat what you read on any clinic website, including this one, as a claim to be verified rather than a fact to be accepted.
Common questions
Because quotes on a website are the least discriminating signal in the sector: there is no cost to producing them and no mechanism verifying that the person quoted exists. The standards a practice commits to in writing are worth more than any of them.
Only when lighting, camera position, distance, expression and make-up are identical in both frames and the interval is stated. Without that, differences in photography can exceed differences in result.
Two weeks or later for filler and needling, three to six months for collagen-driven treatments. Images taken on the day show swelling.
Very little on its own, since almost all clinics cluster near the top. The text of the reviews, and the clinic's replies to criticism, carry the information.
It generally reflects purchasing volume rather than clinical standards. Verify clinical registration instead.
On their regulator's own public register, and on the register of any accrediting body they name. Registers accredited by the Professional Standards Authority are searchable directly.
Related reading
Enquiries
Write with the area that concerns you and what you have tried already. You will get a considered reply setting out which treatments apply, which do not, and what an assessment would need to establish before anything is recommended.
hello@aestheticlaunchlab.comPlease do not send clinical photographs or medical records by email. If something has gone wrong after a procedure, contact the practitioner who treated you, or NHS 111 in Scotland, rather than waiting for a reply.
