Kate Winslet Doesn’t Resemble Kate Winslet’s Vogue Cover

Actress Kate Winslet attends the photocall for "Labor Day" during the 57th BFI London Film Festival at The Mayfair Hotel on October 14, 2013 in London, England.  (Photo by Gareth Cattermole/Getty Images for BFI)

Actress Kate Winslet attends the photocall for “Labor Day” during the 57th BFI London Film Festival at The Mayfair Hotel on October 14, 2013 in London, England.

That up there is Kate Winslet, Oscar-winning actress, positive body image lobbyist, wife of a man with an unconventional surname and mother of two (soon to be three). We included the above photo so you can see what a pretty lady Winslet is, with all her wavy blonde hair and glowing skin. Oh, it’s also to remind you what she looks like today. Literally today.

Because Winslet’s Vogue cover also came out today, and the woman looking back at us who is supposedly Kate Winslet doesn’t much resemble her:

Kate Winslet Vogue November 2013

That would be the forthcoming November 2013 issue of American Vogue and up there, windswept amid all the cover lines is a woman we’re to believe is Kate Winslet.

Alas, the lady pictured looks much more like a Frankenstein’s Monster pastiche of several Vogue-ready celebrity blondes, namely Kate Hudson, Candice Swanepoel and Uma Thurman with a dash of Winslet thrown in. There’s someone else we can’t quite place–any thoughts?

Still, passing resemblance or no, we think it’s a bit of a step up from Claire Danes‘ recent starring turn on Vogue and its own accompanying Photoshop hackjob.

(Photo by Gareth Cattermole/Getty Images for BFI)

Share This Post:
    • CMJ

      I gasped. That is bad.

    • LCTerrill

      Awful! They should fire that retoucher, stat.

      I’m seeing a bit of Cameron Diaz…

      • Freppelepp

        And still people think that it’s the actual retouchers who makes these
        calls. Obviously that’s not the case, as there are always a handful of
        directors who dictates how the final pictures will look. I agree that the retouching on this picture has gone too far, but fire that retoucher will do nothing about the underlying problem.

        I work as a retoucher and take great pride in the work I do, as all great make-up artists and hairdressers also do. You are never going to see non-retouched or styled photos in Vogue or any other magazines, so I don’t understand why people keep getting upset about this. Just don’t buy the magazines if you don’t like them, and to he honest it’s been a long time since these magazines published anything mind-blowing.

      • LCTerrill

        Of course it’s not just the retoucher’s fault, but there are some execution problems with this particular image.

        I think the true issue these days isn’t that Photoshop is used, but rather the way it is used to erase all humanity in the subjects; seems like all you end up with at the end of the day with so many of these is an inflatable-doll version of a person. There are ways to erase wrinkles without also erasing all the normal shadows and highlights that indicate actual human facial contours—which is certainly what happened here.

      • Freppelepp

        I agree though. Most retouchers worth their salary will do their best to make the retouching barely noticeable. When I work I do my best to enhance the beauty that is already there by highlighting positive areas and subduing negative ones, all within moderation of course. At the end of the day though, the retouchers really have nothing to say, it’s the art directors and editors etc. who decides when a picture is “done” and ready for print. Sadly.

        Also, comparing a paparazzi shot with straight on flash to a professionally lit shot with professional stylists and make-up artists on set is getting really old.

    • bourkebabe

      Gee…scary…and I love Kate!

    • Munchies

      I see some Gillian Anderson in the forehead/nose bridge area….the whole thing is awful.