Kate Middleton Didn't Deserve This Bad Photoshopped Cover (PHOTO)

Railing against the evils of photoshop seems like a waste of time these days, namely because every single celebrity we see in a magazine has had her body and face enhanced in some way. The key word, though, is enhanced—which is the purpose of photoshop. So when we got a glimpse at Kate Middleton on the cover of Woman's Day looking a hundred times worse, we had to question who in God's name thought this was a good idea.


The Duchess of Cambridge's photo was butchered by the Australian magazine after she made a public appearance at Kensington Leisure Centre in London last week. In real life, the pregnant princess absolutely glowed in a baby-blue coat, with her hair and makeup looking as natural and fresh as a field of daisies:

She honestly needs zero photoshop to begin with, but I can understand a photo editor wishing to make her coat a bit brighter so that she (pardon the pun) pops in the photo.

And then there's this. Somebody has some serious explaining to do about this bizarrely doctored image of pretty Kate:

Kate's eyes have been lightened in a way that makes her look possessed, and for reasons unknown, her lipstick and blush hues have been darkened. As a result, she appears to be about 15 years older than she actually is.

More from The Stir: Kate Middleton's Outfit to 9/11 Memorial Causes a Scandal

I'm willing to accept that photoshop is here to stay because magazines make money by selling us glamour and fantasy. But photoshop is a skill and not one that everyone nails every single time. This is an example of a beautiful celebrity brought down by too much meddling and tampering with her natural good looks.

What's your opinion on Kate's photoshopped magazine cover?


Images via Chris Jackson/Getty Images; WPA Pool/Getty Images

Read More >