Everybody can be made to look better with make-up applied by a skilled person.
That's why it's called Make-Up and all the before images use different lighting.
All women use Make-Up (at least the ones that want to get laid do), where's the problem?
Look, I'm a photographer and I see no substantial difference in lighting in most cases (I reviewed about a dozen, not all). It's the makeup which makes the lighting appear different.
Not in all but in a lot of them.
And this one.
When I look at the background in the first one you posted, I see a white door that is lit differently in the before and after pics.
The...Wikipedia: The... is the debut extended play by South Korean boyband JYJ, a group formed of three of the five members of TVXQ. It was released in Japanese language under Rhythm Zone, the band's former Japanese label as a part of TVXQ. The release was commercially successful, reaching number one on Oricon's weekly albums chart. →
I'm not saying there's never any difference, I just looked at a dozen or so and the lighting wasn't extravagantly different. In some photos, what you are calling color saturation is mostly a difference in white balance to compensate for the sort of lighting used.
Midday summer sunlight or equivalent photo lighting, like flash, is almost purely white. Incandescent light gives a yellow-orange cast. Fluorescent a green cast. White balance, used properly, adjust the cast of the latter two to appear as if white light had been used.
Hahaha, yea that must be it, those houses don't have roofs. LOL
White balance is read through the lens,so a dramatic change in skin tone, for example, can affect white balance calculations somewhat, too. The only way to get a 100% accurate white balance calculation is by using a white or gray subject, usually a sheet of paper or card stock, thus eliminating color distractions.
What you could be seeing is a change in the time of day which changes the lighting in the room which affects the automatic settings on the camera. Like in the first one with the red, I doubt she did all that work in less than an hour.
If you say so...but I'm a skeptic....all those pictures are inside shots...and that's NOT natural light lighting the scene.
If those pictures were taken outside then you and the Unseen One might have a leg to stand on, but in this case the preponderance of the evidence is on my side.
I too am a photographer and I see quite a lot of difference in the lighting, I would say that most of the 'natural' photographs are taken with a flash on or near the camera, the 'professional' pictures are taken using studio lighting rigs with reflectors. The studio lighting provides a softer light with better skin tones and fewer shadows.
In addition look at the focal length of the lenses, in many of the 'professional' shots you will notice that the background appears a lot closer to the model even though the image fills the frame the same, indicating that a telephoto lens was used in those shots and wider angle lens in the 'natural shots', the telephoto lens causes less distortion to the shape of the face.
Well, then, look at the catchlight in the eyes. It's a generally good way to analyze the lighting and the catchlights between the before and after shots seem anywhere from very similar to absolutely identical. As for focal length, there does seem to be some variety there. I assume that goes to the photographer shooting from different distances, not necessarily intentionally. I just don't find any substantial subtext of deceit in the photos.
Taking another look, I do see that in many of the "before" shots there was an incandescent light on overhead in addition to the photographic lighting, whereas in most cases (I didn't examine every single one) the overhead light was not on for the after shots.