At 35, some loss of midface volume can certainly make the under-eye area look more hollow or accentuate bags, and your previous sun exposure may also contribute to changes in skin quality. The important distinction is whether you're primarily dealing with volume loss, a true tear-trough hollow, protruding lower-eyelid fat, skin laxity, or a combination. These can look very similar in photographs but require different approaches. If there is genuine volume deficiency in the cheeks, midface/cheek filler can be a reasonable nonsurgical option. In fact, restoring some volume higher in the cheek can sometimes improve the transition beneath the eye without putting a large amount of filler directly into the delicate tear-trough area. Midface volumization is recognized as an important component of treating infraorbital hollowing. I would be more conservative about simply adding more filler directly underneath the eyes. The skin there is extremely thin, and HA filler can occasionally produce persistent puffiness, malar edema, bluish discoloration, or contour irregularities. These issues can sometimes appear months or even years after treatment. Your history of having filler in the cheeks and under-eyes in 2020 and again in 2023 is also important. Before adding additional product, I would want to establish how much of the previous filler is still present and whether the current appearance is actually from volume loss. HA fillers can last considerably longer in some individuals than expected, particularly in areas such as the midface. If the "bags" are primarily caused by protruding orbital fat rather than a hollow, adding filler may actually make the area look heavier. In patients with more pronounced bags or laxity, surgical options such as lower blepharoplasty with fat repositioning can sometimes provide a more definitive correction than repeatedly adding filler. At the same time, your age does not automatically mean surgery is necessary. If your main issue is volume deficiency with relatively good skin quality and minimal fat protrusion, a conservative midface approach with carefully selected HA filler may give a very nice improvement. I would also separate the issue of volume from skin quality. Your history of significant tanning is relevant because sun exposure can contribute to collagen and elastin damage. Filler can restore volume, but it won't correct sun-related texture, fine lines, pigmentation, or laxity. Those concerns may benefit from a separate skin-rejuvenation strategy. So, rather than trying to fill every hollow, I would think of this as restoring the overall cheek-to-under-eye transition. Sometimes a relatively small amount of strategically placed cheek volume can accomplish more—and look more natural—than directly filling the bags. The under-eye area deserves particular caution because, although filler can be effective, it is anatomically unforgiving and carries uncommon but potentially serious vascular complications.