So, We’re Photoshopping Babies Now?

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:

Here is the after:

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