Kate Middleton's Waist Photoshopped By Grazia (PHOTOS)

Jezebel points out that the fine folks at Grazia might have done quite a number on Kate Middleton's waist on its recent cover.

The British glossy appears to have digitally whittled down the duchess' middle, which is pretty ironic after the country's tabloids spent a good chunk of time and ink debating her weight.

Grazia blogger Alex Butt previously told local NBC, "I mean she certainly has lost weight. The thing with Kate is that she's very sporty, she's very active, so she's always been very, very toned. But I think at the moment there's no denying she's slimmer than she has been."

Well, there's definitely no denying it now! Although Grazia did contact us with the following statement: "Grazia did not make any changes to the image of the Duchess of Cambridge to make her look or appear slimmer than she is."

Take a look at the mag's hack job next to an actual image of Kate on her big day. To be fair, the cover sort of has a jagged-edge, cutout aesthetic. Also, we really, kind of love Grazia. But, still.

Quick Poll

Grazia's cover:

NOT that bad!

REALLY awful!

Share your vote on Facebook so your friends can take this poll

(Via Jezebel)

Comments

[LolaP]

11:56 AM on 06/03/2011

as if it needed photoshopping..

[Frank Lee Mydear]

10:24 AM on 05/07/2011

Huffington has the wrong photo that was used. The looks like the correct photo because Kate's eyebrow is arched and she's looking at the camera as it seems to appear on the Grazia cover.

http://www.life.com/gallery/59731/kate-middleton-the-beautiful-bride#index/28

http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/113266648?esource=life_license

[mannequin]

11:32 PM on 05/07/2011

HP didn't say that was the photo Grazia used - just that it was an actual photo of Kate from her wedding day, provided for comparison. Read more carefully.

[Frank Lee Mydear]

10:11 PM on 05/16/2011

Yes, you are right, but it is still misrepresentation on their part. If I could find the actual picture, they could. You don't comp[laine about a red apple and put a green one in it's place. The only way to make an actual comparison about a retouched photo is to show the ACTUAL retouched photo. Yes it's at a slightly different angle, but that's the point. Turned slightly would give an illusion of a thinner waist and the hack PSing would exacerbate it even more. If you can't trust the HP editors on a crap article, do you think you can trust them with real news?

[greysells2]

08:02 AM on 05/07/2011

She's fine just as she is, just like the rest of us. No need to photoshop her.

[Lauren Kottwitz]

04:11 PM on 05/06/2011

Why would you even bother with a waist that is already SO SMALL!

[Christopher Koulouris]

03:01 AM on 05/06/2011

So in essence what Grazia seems to be championing are the lies and delusions that it and most of the fashion industry keep feeding us as honey dew skim goodness. At some point one has to wonder when the fashion industry will own up to its flagrant and insistent misbehavior- because frankly some of us are just plain tired of it.

http://scallywagandvagabond.com/2011/05/grazia-magazine-is-playing-games-with-kate-middletons-figure-on-its-covers/

[Frank Lee Mydear]

09:21 AM on 05/07/2011

As I said before, I think it was an accident and laziness (and Grazia says they only had hours to put this issue together). I did do the same thing with the photograph that Huffington Post says is the photo Grazia used and I discovered that her waist didn't need to be narrowed. That's when I realized that Huffington has the wrong photo! Though hard to see, the Grazia photo has Kate looking at the camera, the Huffington photo has her looking to her right. I found the right photo at Life.com and traced it to Getty Images. That photo does cause the arm to be rotated a bit and though I still think they could have fixed it, it caused the narrowing of the waist.

[mannequin]

11:30 PM on 05/07/2011

HP didn't say that was the photo used - they simply said it was an actual photo of Kate from her wedding day.

[Pembrokelib]

08:46 PM on 05/05/2011

Just another example of the fashion world glorifying anorexic looking women. Very bad for impressionable teenagers.

[lookingforintegrity]

05:06 PM on 05/05/2011

Yes, you did, Grazia. Do you take us for fools? Just admit it.

[JKPHILLY]

04:01 PM on 05/05/2011

Her waist was tiny enough...it seems like they were trying to prove their point by photoshpping her...

[Max Shaw]

03:09 PM on 05/05/2011

*NO need....

[Max Shaw]

03:08 PM on 05/05/2011

There was need to photoshop her at all...seems like a waste of time and money to "fix" someone who is already dead gorgeous.

[Jodi Smith]

02:07 PM on 05/05/2011

who cares. this wedding business is getting old.

[TheIndependentView]

01:52 PM on 05/05/2011

...if this kind of thing bothers you just act obnoxiously happy about your size like the fat women do on the talk shows.

[susan tat]

12:59 PM on 05/05/2011

How totally ridiculous and unfair to women the world over! She already has a a shape and waist to die for! These magazine people are nuts!!!

[WYO PROUD]

12:42 PM on 05/05/2011

Well, they say that the Holocaust look is comming back...

[daintymess]

12:06 PM on 05/05/2011

not only is that ridiculous, but that cover is FUG.