• Fri, Apr 25 - 10:05 am ET

Even Baby Prince George Got The Royal Photoshop Treatment For His Cover Of Us Weekly

Photo; Chris Jackson/Getty Images

Photo; Chris Jackson/Getty Images

Nobody is safe from the dreaded photoshop curse–not even baby Prince George. Indeed, the beloved product of Prince William and Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge has gotten the same treatment as every other famous person. Except he’s a baby, so it’s weird.

Let’s get this out of the way before we discuss the matters at hand, however: babies are stupid and ugly and it’s time that we steal all their stuff, then photoshop the bejeezus out of their faces. At least, this appears to be the direction society has opted to go in, what with glitzy photoshop being applied to toddlers’ faces and then making them model bikinis in the creepiest possible ways. (Okay, not really, though.)

For the cover of Us Weekly, Prince George–whom I will remind you is a 9-month-old baby–was reportedly “enhanced” in appearance. It seems that the magazine was displeased with the child’s look, so it lightened his eyes, rosied his cheeks and gave his hair and skin tone a warmer, more reddish look. Charming. Also, incredibly ridiculous to a degree that is difficult to actually parse out exactly how I feel about it.

Even Baby Prince George Got The Royal Photoshop Treatment For His Cover Of Us Weekly

Now, while I do think babies are fairly stupid, I was kidding about the other stuff up there–we should probably not steal all their stuff nor photoshop them nor have them model bikinis on the beach for GOOP. In fact, we should really stop trying to make them into mini-adults because they are, you know, children. Photoshopping an actual baby for the cover of a very adult magazine that frequently holds headlines like “Tortured For Her Weight,” “In Love With A Sex Addict,” and “Babies, Lies & Scandal” (okay, maybe that last one) is inappropriate at best and downright offensive at worst.

We all know that the excessive editing of photos has got to stop–or at least slow down–at some point. Even celebrities like Lorde, Nicki Minaj and Lady Gaga have become frustrated with the increasing amount of photoshop applied to their appearances. The idea of a baby getting photoshopped almost sounds like a Twilight Zone episode that predicted the future of the tabloid media. (“A tale so airbrushed, you won’t–and can’t–believe it with your own eyes!”) It is simultaneously comical and sad that we live in a time wherein toddlers are told to wear tiaras and babies are told their skin isn’t poreless enough.

Photos: Jezebel

Share This Post:
  • Katie

    Those cheeks though! (Also to me, it looks more like they ran it through an instagram filter)

    • Lindsey Conklin

      YES and not even one of the better ones (i.e. x-pro haha)

  • Lindsey Conklin

    seriously WTF? he also looks cuter pre-photoshop. (because he is the cutest baby ever)

  • Maria

    I don’t consider this “photoshopped”. They changed the lighting, which is something you do with professional pictures that are going to be printed. A camera only catches a version of what your eyes can see, lightroom (not photoshop, probably) tweaks the image. I don’t feel like they changed anything about the baby, they just made the lighting look more sunny. Totally normal thing to do.

  • Alicia Kiner

    I have to say that while I’m totally against photoshopping a baby… this looks like they added a filter, or lighting effect in post-editing. Basically achieving what you would if you put a filter over your lens BEFORE you took the picture. They didn’t make him look thinner or fatter, or any other ridiculous thing they do to women on covers. Could you imagine accentuating his thigh gap? They made it look like the sun was shining. I will say it is a dangerous precedent to set.

  • keanesian

    Wait, are his cheeks smaller on the magazine cover?

    • Samantha Escobar

      The camera adds 10 pounds (or 10 oz. for babies), so they had to!

  • Katherine Handcock

    I agree with those who say it’s basically modifying the lighting, but I also agree that we don’t want to go there. Seriously, at some point, can’t we accept that normal life isn’t perfection? Nobody was looking at the first picture and going, “Ugh, that’s awful” so there was no reason to change it.

    • Butt Trophy Recipient

      Wait, I do this all the time. This is to correct lighting ERROR, not to enhance/modify the subject to look unrealistic.

      The original photo is the unrealistic one…

      although… they are British and never sees the Sun… Maybe.

    • Lackadaisical

      As an Englishwoman I see nothing wrong in the lighting of the first one. Everyone knows all tans come from bottles, what is this sun thing you crazy foreigners sleek of?

    • Butt Trophy Recipient
    • Lackadaisical

      Yes, we would consider that particular shade to be Essex orange here in the UK.

    • Jessica

      Yeah, it looks like normal post-processing to correct the white balance.

      But that can be done in *gasp* photoshop!

    • Katherine Handcock

      But isn’t the original photo a candid? To me, that’s not a lighting error, that’s what real life looks like through a lens.

      I would definitely have a different feeling if it were a posed portrait and the lighting wasn’t right – edit away. But I do feel like it’s a bit strange to take a candid shot and start correcting lighting.

      That said, my photography skills are strictly at point-and-shoot levels, so I know that people who are actually photographers have a different eye for these things!

    • Butt Trophy Recipient

      Well, I guess my point is that this overplayed internet jargon “photoshopping” implies increasing breast size, getting rid of wrinkles, etc. etc. that misrepresents the subject.

      But balancing light isn’t photoshopping. I can balance the light on my Nikon DSLR simply by using a different white balance mode Here’s a great write up with examples on this.

      http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/whitebalance.htm

      http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/images/CIMG1132-auto.jpg
      http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/images/CIMG1140-shade.jpg

      This is obviously NOT “photoshopping,” and it’s ignorant (of photography) to suggest that it is. It’s not as if they edited his pic to make his cheeks chubbier and cuter.

    • Katherine Handcock

      Okay, that’s fair. As I said, I don’t know much about photography! Thanks for sharing the examples.

      On the other hand, given that entertainment magazines are not exactly models of restraint, I am a bit afraid of seeing true modifications getting made to younger and younger people.

    • Spiderpigmom

      Didn’t they change the color of his eyes too? I don’t find that the lighter eye color looks nicer. But then I tend to find dark-eyed babies super adorable (my son’s eyes look almost black).

    • Rachel Sea

      Cameras take pictures of what they see, but they don’t see things in the way human eyes do. Our brains do some color balancing so even when the light is very cool, like in the original shot, we don’t perceive it as being so very blue. The second picture, while being just a bit too warm to my eye, is probably closer to what a bystander would have seen.

      Plus, with all the yellow and pink on the magazine cover, the blue of the original would have been even more pronounced, and unnatural looking.

  • Oorna

    All they’ve done is correct the lighting in post-processing. This article veers dangerously close to being click-bait.

  • Rachel Sea

    I was expecting to be outraged, but all they did was make the lighting warm instead of cool. It looks like the photo was taken during a heavy overcast. To the naked eye he probably looks more like the altered photo than the original.

  • Lackadaisical

    I agree with all of those who say that this is more a colour correction than a Photoshop. My only note of caution is that the gutter press in the UK being what it is at some point when the tabloids are bored /on the outs with the royals again and Kate is seen laughing and smiling with her brother in law in the crowd while her husband does some crowd pleasing royal duty then they will be using the adjusted colour pictures rather then the originals to compare George’s picture to that of his father and red headed uncle and make veiled (and not so veiled) hints about George’s parentage. Yes, I know that a story like that is bobbins and seems like a cruel and obvious lie to us now, but that won’t stop the media having a laugh that is hurtful to the targets. The hints were only mild but the hints were still definitely there from some of the UK media when Kate was seen to get on well with her brother-in-law in the crowds at the Olympics when William couldn’t be there, despite her laughing and looking like fun company in shots of her with her husband, Camilla, Charles, her own siblings and even the Queen and Philip. I have also heard many people joke, particularly on telly, when she was pregnant about the kid being born ginger (nudge, nudge, wink, wink). Retouching a picture to make him look a bit more ginger (just to make a warmer picture) and then another part of the media taking the ginger picture to imply scandal that utterly, truly, isn’t there is an actual possibility. It doesn’t help that William’s brother Harry is the subject of constant jokes in the UK about looking not a lot like Charles and a lot like a man his mum is known to have had an affair with, a hint of ginger is already associated with rumours of royal babies not having the father they are supposed to in the minds of the UK tabloids and comedians.

  • Greg

    Dumb. Not to make baby look better but to improve lighting caused by cloudy day. Click bait.

  • lulu

    You’re an idiot. This is just color correction. Shut up.

  • J_Doe5686

    I just want to know what are they feeding that baby, I mean, Prince? I’m asking because my best friend’s baby is 13 month old and is half his size…

  • chucky

    Duh, it’s called “color correction”. Idiots.

    This is either deliberate click-bait, or just another example of an ignorant, incompetent journalist poorly researching their story.

  • Myra A Cottrill

    Obviously, the author has never in her life applied an Instagram filter to a picture.