Natural or digitally enhanced?

The trip down memory lane, last post was fun. Today I thought I’d bring things bang up to date!
Here’s a black and white studio portrait of me recently where I feature without any digital enhancement.
It’s done the old fashioned way using daylight and lens exposure settings and this type of photography is a great way to give us ladies of a certain age a little allure and mystery.
These days, because of digital photography, all fine lines on the skin are very clearly defined leaving nothing to blur or look less defined in the shadow.
The problem is modern studio pictures are taken digitally, and can age the sitter so appallingly that it’s really very tempting, when it is being offered by the photographer to have a little ‘touching up,’
I think you know what I mean ladies – no smutty thoughts puleeease!
In  digital pics I’ve had taken recently swear I look like the mummified crypt keeper (yes I am prone to exaggeration but you get my point.) And in this colour photo, I’ve had that digital make-over
That’s why I am in sympathy with celebs who will be featuring in a cover shoot and want a little less ‘revelation’
But I do think a declaration on the part of the magazine that digital enhancement is used, could be helpful.
Especially when it comes to advertising.
You know the images where a teenager with perfect skin and dentistry has her skin airbrushed, so she can show middle aged women the merits of the latest anti aging skin cream. You know, the ones where you forget to remind yourself that it’s all a big fib.
I explain  in more depth how the beauty industry can hoodwink you in my ageless style e-book along with some cracking tools for understanding how to look your best after 40.
In the trade it’s called wish fulfillment, because advertisers believe that you want to see a perfect young face when you are thinking of buying an anti aging skin cream but I call it criminal. But what say you on this subject? I’d really like to know?