Here are the photos again:
OK, first of all, while I know it's very difficult to take progress photos that are good comparison, I would like to point out that the second photo in this set is an enlarged version of the first photo. How do I know this? There is a porcelain throne aka toilet in front of model so my guess is she's standing at more or less the same spot in both photos, but notice the size of the mirror that is in front of her in the first photo compared to the mirror in the second photo. What's more, notice how small her mid-section looks in the first photo vs the second enlarged photo. And one last thing is her head in the first photo is closer to the top of the frame than the second photo...so while shoulders seem to be level, we're looking at lengths that cannot be compared coz one is starts from higher than the other so you'd not see the difference in length as you would if both heads were on the same level.
While I don't claim to be able to create a perfect comparison set, below I post the same images and then immediately below I show how I shrunk the second photo a touch to get the model to be about the same size she is in the first photo. She still looks a touch bigger if you look at her mid-section but it's close. I also moved her up a bit so that the top of her head in the second image is sort of on the same level as first image. (Now I know some of you will ask about her shoulder to our right in second pic that appears higher than that in the first pic.
That's because she's raised that shoulder higher. If you look at her left shoulder on both pics, they are at the exact same level. You can see the emphasis in the raise of right shoulder in the second pic in the slight lean of her torso to the left in the same pic)
Now here are the things to notice in the two photos at the bottom:
[*]First of all, I don't see thicker hair in the second pic than in the first. in fact all I see is strands that were spread out before being pushed toghether to create the illusion of no fullness. This is pretty obvious if you look at how the width of the hair reduced by about 1/3-2/5. To see this another way, in the first image the width of the hair below APL is wider than it is at the ear or camera level because the hair is spread out. In the second photo, the hair below APL is as wide as the hair at cam or ear level because the strands have been pushed closer together.
[*].
[*]Do you notice in the original photos where her waist is? You can see an outward curve after her waist in the both original photos. Her long hairs are about her camera height away from the waist in the first image, but notice, they are not the hairs in the middle only...but hairs on the side too. If anything, she appears not to have a V in her hair growth there. It's either nape hairs all at the same length across the spectrum and so falling to that near waist length...or she has ends that could use a tiny trim so that they don't break off.
[*].
[*]Now I just pointed out in the last point how the hairs on the outside were about as long as the hairs in the middle. I don't see the phenomenon that @
Kurlee and I are talking about where the sides are shorter than the nape hairs in that first image. If anything I see hair all falling to more or less the same length in the first image. But in the second image, the sides seem to be so much shorter. While previously the hairs on the side were a camera height away from the waist, they are now 2 camera heights away. They didn't catch up; they broke off and are much shorter.
[*].
[*]But what about the center section? It is still long so does that mean that middle hair did not break like the sides? No, it doesn't mean that at all. You see, if you don't try to even out your hair to fall to the same length, the nape will always hang longer than the sides because the hairs at the nape are planted at a lower point on your head than the hair say by your ears. So the shape you see is what I would expect from someone (like me) who isn't trying to get hair to fall to the same length but keeping all the strands say at 11 inches or at 20 inches or whatever. Sadly, that middle section too did indeed break off just like the sides. And do you know how I know? Because between April 2010 and Sept 2010, hair growing at a perfect rate should be at least 3 inches longer. But since it's not a perfect world and wear and tear occurs, we should at least see about 2 inches or so in that time. So those middle hairs should be at waist now. But that hair appears not to have budged because it broke off just like the sides.
[*].
[*]The reason the sides broke off more is because hair on your head experiences the same trauma as you wash, condition, etc. So let's say you're starting off with one inch of hair all over. All those strands go through the same washing, styling, cold, hot experiences together. As months go by, that inch that started the journey will have been taken through the wringer. It will be the same age all around and it will be on the ends of your hair. As your hair gets to SL, the nape will hit shoulders first and so start to experience friction first. If you're bunning or trimming to even hair out, this will not be a problem and you may not even notice it, because you will cut off the damaged nape hairs or bunning will keep them from getting damaged and breaking off quickly. I don't know which of these the model in the photos was doing but clearly her hair was all falling to the same length as if she'd been cutting it that way before April 2010. Now remember, when you cut hair to fall to the same length, the hair at the nape gets a good cut so all damage is removed and that area will have the healthiest strands coz you cut off most of the old hair. The side get a trim too but the ends will be older than the nape hair since you leave longer hair there which has been around for a while when cutting to have hair fall to the same length.
So what happened IMO is the sides broke off by the time Sept came along to the point that was as old as the nape hair left is. In other words, think of the one inch that started the fictional journey I mentioned above. Either it had been cut off to even out the hair from the nape before April 2010 or gradual friction from SL length caused nape hair to be weakened so that that old hair broke off on its own. The sides which were higher were still holding onto those old ends but they were weak from age and in time due wear, they too broke off...so that she now has hairs that are the same length all around and which now fall to different lengths.
Think of how I keep saying that dusting stops hairs from tearing up the stands and breaking off on their own. Me thinks because the model didn't nip that tearing up the strands, the hair just tore up to where it was strongest and then the weaker ends broke off to give natural layers where she now REALLY has the lead hairs that Kurlee was talmbout. But hair didn't budge in length but rather she lost some length on the sides.
There is no such thing as lead hairs. 
Makes no ounce of sense. But if y'all believe in fairy tales and they make your life rosy, then continue to live in delusion and to believe in "lead hairs".
