Your hair, changed. Your face, exactly as it is.
Pick a cut and see it on a real person in a real photograph, then put your own photo through the same change. Your face, your clothes, your room and your light stay as they were. Only the hair moves.
Loading the cuts…
It changes the hair on the head in the photograph you already have. Your face, your clothes, the room and the light stay exactly as they were. What moves is the cut: the length, the shape, where it is parted, whether it is up or down. Nothing is beautified, nothing is slimmed, no feature is replaced and nobody is made younger. If the result stops looking like you, it has failed, and there are two questions under every photo for exactly that reason.
This is the third tool in the family. Pose Maxing changes what your body is doing, Style Maxing changes what you are wearing, and this one changes the hair. The rule is the same in all three: one variable moves and everything else is held still, because a photograph where three things changed proves nothing about any of them.
Clothes can be swapped wholesale and a face still reads as yours. Hair cannot, and the reason is that hair is not on top of the face, it frames it. Changing the cut changes the apparent shape of the head, the width of the face at the temples and the height of the forehead, and those are the exact cues people use to recognise someone they know. A new hairline can make a photograph read as somebody else while every individual feature is still correct.
There is a second, duller problem: hair touches the background. Every strand at the edge meets a wall, a window or the sky, and an edit has to rebuild that boundary in a photograph it did not light. A cut that is shorter than the one you arrived with also uncovers neck, ears and wall that were hidden, and those have to be invented from what surrounds them. This is where hair edits fail visibly, which is why our prompt names the problem rather than hoping.
And a third, which we found by measuring: edits lighten hair. On the first three test renders the hair came back six, twenty-one and twenty-nine luma points brighter than the source, with no instruction to change the colour at all. A cut in the wrong shade is a failed edit even when the shape is perfect, so the colour is now a hard constraint in the prompt and the result is measured against the original before anybody is shown it.
A hairstyle in a photograph is doing a different job from a hairstyle in a room. In a room it moves, and the movement is most of the effect. In a photograph it is a shape against a background, frozen, and the only things that survive are the outline and the way it meets the face.
What photographs well: anything with a clear silhouette. A blunt line at the jaw. Volume that sits above the crown rather than behind it. A part that is visibly a decision. Length that falls in front of the shoulders rather than behind them, because behind them it disappears against the body and the photograph loses it entirely.
What does not: fine detail you have to look for. Layers that read as texture in person and as noise at the size a profile photograph is actually viewed. Anything that depends on the hair moving. If a cut needs to be in motion to make sense, no still photograph will sell it, and that is not a limitation of this tool.
Three things, and the first is the one that gets ignored. Your head needs to fill a good part of the frame. Hair is rendered strand by strand into however many pixels the head occupies, so a full-length photograph where the head is a few percent of the picture produces a soft, obviously wrong result at full price. We measure this before anything is spent and say so rather than taking the money.
Second, the hair has to be visible: no hat and no hood. There is nothing to change under one, and we will not remove it to make the tool work.
Third, your face should not be covered, by hair across it, by a hand or by sunglasses. The cut is built around a face, and if we cannot read the face there is nothing to build around.
Every example on this page is rendered on the same head, so that the cut is the only thing changing from card to card. That is the right choice for showing what a cut does and the wrong one for showing what it will do to you, because that head has one hair texture and yours may be a different one.
So the card says whose hair it is showing the cut on, and your own result follows your own texture rather than the model's. If you have tight curls, a cut demonstrated on straight hair will arrive looking like that cut on your hair, which is not the same picture and is the honest answer. We would rather say this on the page than have you decide the tool is broken when the result does not match the card.
If you wear a kippah, a hijab, a tichel, a turban or a wig, this tool has nothing to offer you and will not quietly remove it to produce a result. A head covering is not a hairstyle and taking it off somebody in a photograph is not an edit, it is an insult.
Style Maxing can change what you are wearing without touching anything above the neck, and that is the better door.
It will not give you hair you do not have. Thinning stays thinning and a receding hairline stays where it is, because the entire claim of this product is that the person in the result is really you, and a photograph that quietly corrects your hairline is a photograph of a stranger with your face.
It will not colour your hair. Cut and colour are different decisions and mixing them means you cannot tell which one you are reacting to.
It will not move the camera, crop the frame, change your expression or fix your skin. If anything other than the hair changed, that is a fault, and the second question under the result is there to catch it.
That is the question the tool is built around, which is why we ask it back rather than assuming. Your face, its geometry, your skin and your expression are held exactly as they were; only the hair changes. The failure mode is subtle rather than dramatic: a new fringe can shift how the whole face reads while every feature is technically correct. There are two questions under every result, one about whether the hair looks real and one about whether the person still looks like you, because those are different failures and a single thumbs down cannot tell them apart.
Yes, and that is the point of the tool. Upload a photograph where your head fills a good part of the frame, pick a cut, and you get your own face with that cut, in the same room and the same light you were photographed in. It is a better test than a mirror board at the salon, because it is your hair, your face and a photograph rather than somebody else's head with the cut already on it.
No, and we measure the result to check. Hair edits drift lighter on their own: our first test renders came back up to twenty-nine luma points brighter than the source without being asked to change anything. The instruction now forbids lightening, warming, highlights and a new shine at the crown, and the finished illustration is compared with the original before it is published. If a cut comes back in the wrong shade, that is a failed edit, not a new look.
You will be told before anything is charged. A hat or a hood hides the thing being changed, so there is nothing to work with. A head that is small in the frame does not have enough pixels for hair to be rendered convincingly, and we check that with a measurement rather than finding out afterwards. In both cases the answer is another photograph, taken closer, with the hair visible.
One thing changes at a time, which is the whole discipline. Pose Maxing moves the body and leaves the face and the clothes alone. Style Maxing changes what you are wearing and touches nothing above the neck. A finished photo from either one can be carried straight here, and from here into either of them, without downloading anything.