So, We’re Photoshopping Babies Now?Gina Vaynshteyn

Listen, I know the topic of Photoshop has been under tremendous scrutiny, and not just here at HG, but the Internet as a whole. More and more photos have been released, revealing the alterations of celebrities and models on magazine covers and in advertisements. We are well aware of the fact that Photoshop is a fact of life, and we also understand that Photoshop itself is the not the enemy. The ones using Photoshop to enhance photos that do not need enhancement are the enemy. Needless to say, we are not fans.

I get that Photoshop is used on models, actors, and musicians. It’s sad, but it’s been happening for a long time. Many celebrities even prefer having their cellulite smoothed out and their waists tightened. Although here we encourage everyone to love their bodies as they are, it’s almost expected that magazines will continue enhancing and changing the way their cover girls and guys look. This is a major social problem, and I’m standing by that. However, when Photoshop is used on babies, I’m not forgiving at ALL. In fact, I’m appalled.

This week, US Weekly Photoshopped Prince George, The Royal Baby. As if that cute little bundle of perfection needed digital enhancing. Here is the before:

485714411 Here is the after: cadd0c40-aeb0-0131-a15c-6a06b50ae34b

Can you tell the difference? In the Photoshopped US Weekly version, 9-month-old Prince George has brighter eyes, more vibrant hair, rosier cheeks, tanner skin (he lives in ENGLAND for crying out loud, it’s cloudy there like, 99.9% of the time, of course he’s pale!), and no teeth. Yup. They deleted his teeth. Since when did having little baby teeth become a flaw we have to erase?! Since when did we start setting beauty standards on infants? This has gotten completely out of control. If BABIES are digitally enhanced so their skin becomes even more “glowing” and “healthy,” what else are they modifying on adult models?

Are there simply no boundaries anymore?

Featured image via. Images via, via

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=645532574 Lane Marie

    as a photographer i can say we don’t enhance the human being, we enhance the photograph. it looks like almost everything they did was color enhancing. Not all images are ready for print straight from the camera.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1044180577 Rob Bean

      As a designer, I completely agree with you. The “original” looks washed out, and I wouldn’t have thought twice about doing a color correction on it. And if they hadn’t, people would be up in arms about the kid looking sickly.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=777568337 Alyse Benae McKee

        Ditto to both! Not all photos are pretty right off the camera.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=23902929 Vanesha Patel

    Really minor side point But, if you look at the picture, they didnt photoshop his teeth out. They saturated the picture making the inside of this mouth darker. If you look at the larger version of the picture. The teeth are still there. Not sure if I’m against color correcting the photo either ONLY because the US Weekly logo is such a bright and saturate yellow the photo might have vibrated weird next to it- colorwise…

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2613138/Just-nine-months-old-Photoshopped-Us-Weekly-accused-airbrushing-baby-Prince-George-rosier-cheeks-greener-eyes.html

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000119876877 Kari Ramsey

    While I agree that images are WAY over Photoshopped these days. As a photographer myself, what I see is that the photo was warmed up a little (which might make him look more tan). The original is very cool (meaning it has blue tones) and the final is a warmer overall tone. Because her hair is also brighter and warmer than in the original and his shirt is a warmer blue, so I believe they did an overall warming of the photo. I do see that the eyes were lightened and that is not necessary. Babies have bright eyes already. And I’m completely with you on the teeth, why would they feel the need to do that?!?

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=501079646 Saskia Gregory

    As a new mum I find this really upsetting. My first thoughts were maybe they just altered the colouring to co-ordinate more with their bright fonts…. but to delete teeth? It’s appalling!

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=638538834 Erin Kavan

    I agree that photoshop is over used, but this isn’t a good example of that at all. What they did was brighten his eyes and added an 85B filter to the photo, not him.
    This photo is a good example of COLOR CORRECTION, not PHOTO MANIPULATION. This has nothing to do with changing the Prince and giving him a tan. This has to do with cleaning up images that were not properly exposed and adding a filter that should have been used on the leans at the time the photo was taken.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=742372782 Shawna Dandois

    I have to agree with the other commenters on this one. It looks more like color correction than actual Photoshopping. I think the original photo is screaming for some color correction.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1308403861 Andrej Milas

    This article is Luddite fodder. Adjusting the white balance is not an act of fraudulent digital enhancement.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1447980672 Sierra Berkenbile

    I would like to point out that the his teeth were not removed. The thumbnail at the top of the article is different than the full image in the body. The top thumbnail is the cover photo. This is clearly simple photo editing that any designer or photographer has to do. This article was not well thought out, we need to be morerstional about these things or we will make no progress with the things that matter. Like editing women’s bodies.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1447980672 Sierra Berkenbile

      Lol *rational. :p

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=741320037 Jo Julia Ramsey

      I agree! I am a professional photographer, and it is just common retouching practices (not photoshopping) to correct colors and do the basic edits that make everyone look more natural. (Like many others have commented already, I know). In the “before” photo, the color balance is not actually correct/realistic – the light is too cool, therefore making the baby even more pale and even sickly looking. I don’t think that the editor did anything unnatural or distorting to the baby at all. Like Sierra is saying…this article is taking this photoshopping issue (which I DO agree about fighting) to a silly degree. Chill pill time!

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=663474434 Bryan Hollman

    99.9% of that was color correcting but that .1% of teeth deleting is just too much,

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=663474434 Bryan Hollman

      Oh wait. The teeth are still there. This article is kind of stupid now.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=502666226 Devin Lee Ostertag

    I am pretty sure this is just normal photo retouching. Is there really not anything more interesting to write about than photoshopping? I think we all understand it exists at this point…

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=513754634 Sarah North Youle

    All they’ve done is make a poor-quality photograph useable as a front cover. The original is washed out with poor colour, and they have enhanced the quality of the picture to make it suitable for use. It’s not like they’re making him thinner or any of the ridiculous things they do to other people’s photographs. They’re editing the photograph, not the person in it.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1234701721 Stefanie Velten

    I see absolutely no enhancement on either of these pictures, other than the image was color corrected for print, which I do with 100% of my images before they are published.

    As many posters before said, this post is completely redundant and not helpful at all other than getting people up in arms over nothing.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=626741163 Priscilla Carranza

    Find something better to write about. This is obviously not an issue and not retouched. People find anything to complain about now a days

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=510137781 Brittany Walsh

    Idiotic article. The photo was color corrected for print, nothing more.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=45502371 Lindsey Goodson Paris

    No the photo wasn’t photoshopped. The color was saturated and make useable!

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=202304067 Jordan Lanie

    You obviously know nothing about photoshop. Photoshop is a piece software that all photographers use because it is the digital equivalent of a Darkroom. if you look at the original picture you should notice the blue tint of the baby’s skin. If you did’t all of the other photographers that have comment below noticed because that is something we are aware of. cameras don’t always capture the way the world works correctly and since people aren’t actually blue photoshop and all digital cameras have a setting called “White Balance”. This setting compensates for the color of the light hitting the cameras imaging sensor and when the camera can’t fully compensate pictures look like the original, slightly blue. This happens all the time especially when the subject is in the shade, just a quick color lesson, shadows look black to the human eye but render a blue tint on a cameras imaging sensor. Color correction isn’t an abuse of photoshop. Color correction is used on every single photograph ever taken whether its done by the camera manufacturer, the photographers camera settings, Photoshop for digital displays which use Red, Green, Blue or RGB for short, a completely different color mix than physical printers which use CMYK (Cyan, Magenta, Yellow, Black) and some printer use additional colors like White when necessary. Please do a little more research when you write your next article because I usually enjoy HG as a publication but this article is completely baseless. Sorry.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=716665340 Sarah Minerella

    All they did was make a low quality photo look good. Looks like a little adjustment in white balance and saturation. Whoopdee doo….

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100005615047706 Christine Einsel

    Never been disappointed with a Hellogiggles article…. Until now. As many other commenters have stated, this is all part of developing a photo. You should… Probably….not indemnify photoshop….if you don’t know…. How it works…. His skin isn’t “tan” by the way, it has a healthy link glow. Here’s a good first step to learning about photoshop; google “white balance”

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=594540734 Sydni Schiavone

    Oh my God it’s called color correction… Learn about photoshop before you make an ignorant article making photographers and graphic designers look bad.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=604824668 Megan R Bristow

    They literally just changed the color/saturation of the entire photo. You can even see a difference in color in his shirt. Not a big deal.

    However… the “big deal” in this in my opinion is that paparazzi are selling photos of innocent children like him. Check out Kristen Bell and the “No Kids Policy”.

Need more Giggles?
Like us on Facebook!

Want more Giggles?
Sign up for our newsletter!