Do you think it's a big deal?
When it comes to magazine covers, the use of Photoshop is hardly a surprise or even a scandal. We're used to seeing abs digitally carved onto male cover stars, and are familiar with seeing a woman's legs lengthened, her waist trimmed and her neck elongated.
But it seems giving a baby a tan is a step too far, with American tabloid US Weekly coming under fire for changing the colours on a picture of Prince George, leading to articles in the Mail Online, The Independent, Time and beyond.
The magazine's cover features a digitally altered image of the nine-month-old, lightening Prince George's hair, giving him an Aussie tan, rosier lips and, most obviously, bestowing the brown eyed child with blue-green eyes.
All this said, 'warming' up an image taken on a dull day is common practice, and US Weekly told Time they'd done nothing but standard colour correction, probably done in Photoshop, saying: "The original image used for the Prince George cover was dark and bluish in tone and needed to be given an overall colour shift for printing purposes. By no means did we go in and alter the colour of his eyes or cheeks in this process."
We get their point, yes, but gorgeous George has brown eyes like his mum. What do you think, no big deal? Or is altering a wee fella's eye colour a step too far?
Is it ever OK to complain about other people's kids?Related story: (See story)