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

comments

Please help us maintain positive conversations by refraining from posting spam, advertisements, and links to other websites or blogs. we reserve the right to remove your comment if it does not adhere to these guidelines. thanks! post a comment.

  1. This article is bogus. As already stated, digital and print photography require two very different things. Babe has not been manipulated to make him look like a more attractive baby—and come on, every one knows the original looks better anyway—but print requires a totally different color value. Giggles would do well for itself to delete this post and have a serious talk with the author.

  2. I completely agree with the previous comments. First off: the 2 photos are different shots, possibly even taken by different photographers. If they were taken by the same photographer, the cover photo was NOT photoshopped, but simply color corrected. Very standard stuff. Are we gonna start getting mad/disgusted at every photographic piece that isn’t the ‘raw’ version?

  3. The writer seriously needs to spend less time writing and more time researching. Hello Giggles needs to spend more time screening their writers for legitimacy. Not every blogger deserves a voice. Those who commented before me have done a decent job of explaining the features of Photoshop, so I won’t waste my efforts there.

    This article has me questioning whether I want to continue being a part of Hello Giggles community. I originally joined because it was supposed to be a happy place. We already have so many communities that are fueled by rants and gossip. Surely there are a few more good stories of cats skateboarding, or teenagers doing good things. Come on. Let’s step up the game a bit. I demand better! Hello Giggles readers deserve better.

  4. Yeah, you have to color correct before you can print a photo. Maybe let’s learn something before we rage about it….. Over and over and over again?

  5. Im a Photographer and Graphic Designer. This is really not “photoshopped” It was color corrected to get rid of the blue hue to his skin (common edit for most photographs) and his eyes were lightened cause they were very dark, again very common edit. They didn’t make him thinner, get rid of beauty marks, or add/get rid of hair. These are simple edit any picture would need if it was going on a cover of a magazine. You need to figure out what photoshop is.

  6. Some photos just need to be edited to color correct a photo taken with the wrong settings or bad lighting. They just changed the tones to a warmer tint. If they had, say, photoshopped the baby to get rid of baby fat, or made him more shapely, then you’d have an argument. But as it stands, this is literally nothing to complain about the use of Photoshop with.

  7. I do have to say it was a bit disappointing to see this article on Hello Giggles. Usually everything is pretty on point, though this one, maybe could have used a look over by someone who was designer/involved in print/publishing. Instagram (something we all use every day to enhance our own photos), could have delivered a similar result..

    Don’t worry about the haters though Gina, I’ll still keep my eye out for the next article. :)

  8. I am a photographer and as someone who hates photoshop I can tell you right now they just adjested to color so the baby didn’t look so blue! They probably didn’t even use photoshop and more likely used Lightroom or something along those lines. What I can’t believe is that you are to busy worked up about photoshopping and didn’t even bother to address the bigger issue of people selling pictures of a totally innocent child. Maybe you should have some priorities?

  9. I would actually like to draw everyone’s attention to the location of Kate’s right hand. The two images are also different pictures. In the un-color-corrected image, Kate’s right hand is covering the baby’s shorts. There is no gap between his shirt and her hand. In the color-corrected cover image, her hand is much lower on the shorts, showing quite a bit of the shorts’ material between her hand and the shirt.
    I noticed this myself mainly because the shape of the baby’s mouth is slightly different in each image as well. His bottom lip is moved slightly to one side in one picture… like a bit of a grimace.

  10. 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”.

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

  12. 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”

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

  14. 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.

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

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

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

  18. 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.

  19. 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.

  20. 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…

HelloGiggles Podcast