Im only suggesting that when before and after results are shown, that every attempt is made to ensure that both photographs are undertaken in similar lighting conditions. You do not need a Studio for that.
By showing before and after photos in different lighting conditions, you are giving a false representation of the actual results.
This can work both ways, a really good result may be hindered by poor quality photography. But more importantly a bad result can be disguised by reducing contrast, brightness etc.
Im certainly not suggesting this is a bad result. But any person looking at the photographs is unable to make a judgement because of the difference in lighting conditions.
Back in the 90s and early 00s, newspapers/magazines were plagued with HT Clinics advertising their results, by providing photographs with discrepancies in the lighting conditions. They done this to give false representations of their results.
Im am not under any circumstances suggesting that is what Milena Lardi has done. I have seen her work documented, it is amongst the best in the SMP world!
I originally only commented that the flash was different on both photographs, which in actual fact was the conditions of the room in question.
But what i have suggested is that because of the difference in lighting between both photos, that they are not conclusive proof of the actual results of this procedure.
I am not suggesting the results are poor, im only suggesting that every effort should be made to ensure consistency between the before and after photographs.