Worst Photoshopped Celebrity Pictures - VertusTech

Worst Photoshopped Celebrity Pictures

Ok, so we all know that most celebrity photos are touched up, but come on, this takes the biscuit (wafer-thin water biscuit, I might add. God forbid some are allowed to eat a butter shortcake).

1) Faith Hill – Redbook magazine (2007)

Faith Hill has left the building.

In her place is Faithazoid v1.0, complete with mannequin-thin arms, non-existent wrinkles and a perfect neckline and shoulder blades.

Oh, and the real Faith Hill didn’t have a right arm, but ‘Zoid does. ‘Zoid’s arms are also the same girth from shoulder to wrist.

Over-sized head. On a skinny body. Not a good look. No matter what the Photoshop demigods might say.

So much for that tagline under the mag: ‘Love your life’.

Yeah. Right.

worst edited celebrity pics- Faith Hill

2) Kate Winslet – GQ magazine (2003)

Nice legs, but, erm, don’t they belong to the wrong Kate? I’m thinking more Moss than Winslet.

Ok, so admittedly, Winslet has lost some ‘for-Hollywood’ weight over the years, but not THAT much.

“I can tell you they’ve reduced the size of my legs by about a third”, she said. It turns out that, apparently, she’d seen the original photos (pre touch-up) and had liked how her legs looked there, but hadn’t been consulted when the digital changes took place.

I think she should have sued GQ to the tune of “a third” of all copies of the magazine sold for that particular issue.

Kate Winslet worst edited picture

3) Andy Roddick – Men’s Fitness (2007)

Yes, male celebrities aren’t immune to the digital Frankensteinism going on with some mags. Even sports people can’t escape their clutches. Roddick’s biceps got more than a buffing up in Men’s Fitness magazine.

Maybe the mag was missing Popeye and tried to recreate him.

And, ahem, it’s absolutely no coincidence that there’s the title ‘How to Build Big Arms in 5 Easy Moves’ right next to Andy’s pic.

The thought never crossed their minds. Uh-uh. Not in the least.

worst edited celebrity pictures- Andy Roddick

4) Jennifer Aniston – Star Magazine (2007)

So Jen-Jen’s minding her own business, doing whatever celebrities called Jennifer Aniston do, which this time round was her making her way to an auction. In her hand is the auction catalogue.

But uh-uh, this scenario isn’t juicy enough for Star magazine. So they make one up. According to them, Jennifer’s on her way to see her book publisher to hand in a draft copy of her tell-all book about her life with Brad Pitt. Ta da!

But wait – what about the auction catalogue?

Oh that’s easy, Star thinks. Nothing a little bit of Photoshop can’t handle in its sleep. They simply airbrush the image in front of the catalogue away to make it look like a book manuscript and hey presto, Lisa Minelli’s your uncle.

worst edited celebrity pics- Jennifer Aniston

5) Katie Couric – Watch Magazine (2006)

At the time, Katie was about to become the new news anchor for America’s CBS evening news. Someone decided that she looked a bit too big-boned for the cover of CBS’s ‘Watch!’ magazine and decided to give her the Weight-Watchers treatment.

So, a little snip here and little snip there and voila, Katie became a shadow of her former self.

“I liked the first picture better because there’s more of me to love.”

Atta, girl!

worst edited celebrity images- Katie Couric

6) Harry Potter promotional poster (2007)

Wow, Emily – my, my, my, look how you’ve grown.

For the most recent Harry Potter release, Emily Watson’s chest was altered in one of the promotional posters, while it was left unaltered in another.

There is some speculation on several blogs as to which came first – whether her chest was flattened from the original or whether it was enlarged, but that’s really beside the point. It’s bad enough that a need is felt to physically alter pictures of women (and men – but it’s mostly women) – sometimes drastically. But to use the same formula on younger individuals is very worrying.

worst edited celebrity images- harry potter

7) Keira Knightley – King Arthur poster (2004)

What is up with people? Keira is a good-looking young woman and a great actress who I admit needs a bit more meat on her bones, but this is NOT the way to do it, guys.

In the 2004 film, King Arthur, Keira was digitally pumped up from a 32 whatever-she-is cup to at least a 34B.

If they didn’t like how she looked in the outfit, an idea might have been to alter the costume or something, not her.

In more recent times, she’s taken more of a stand and is plain refusing to have her breasts digitally altered in the future.

worst edited celebrity images- Keira Knightly

8) Nicolas Sarkozy – Match magazine (2007)

Oooh, it must be all that rowing, innit?


The original version of the photo (warts and all) was shown in most mags, but the Parisian mag, Match, seemed to have a problem with it and gave the French president a bit of in-house liposuction.

Actually, the French president didn’t look that bad in the first place, but in the retouched version, notice his love handle’s gone AWOL and his side looks unnaturally straight?

worst edited celebrity images- Nicolas Sarkozy

Comments (9)

  1. Robi Reply

    November 17, 2008 at 2:13 am

    Emma Watson.
    Not Emily Watson.

  2. Rebecca Gossett Reply

    November 17, 2008 at 4:59 am

    very interesting. But, just so you know, her name is EMMA Watson. 🙂

  3. Savvas Dalkitsis Reply

    November 17, 2008 at 11:58 pm

    Number six has been debunked before… It is not an enlargement… The one poster was from the left frame of the IMAX version and the other from the right. That’s why her boobs look bigger. Change of perspective.

  4. Twiggy Reply

    November 18, 2008 at 1:10 am

    Number six: Her name is Emma, not Emily.

  5. Jordan Reply

    November 18, 2008 at 7:20 am

    Okay, how does nobody notice that Sarkozy’s left leg is unnaturally thin at the thigh? It’s like a toothpick!

  6. Jason Reply

    November 21, 2008 at 4:32 am

    EMMA Watson, not Emily Watson…

  7. Dingleberry Reply

    November 26, 2008 at 5:01 am


    Nice list – but it’s EMMA Watson, not Emily.

  8. Mike Reply

    November 27, 2008 at 3:14 am

    I came across a website (to which I have long since forgotten the url) that had proof that Emily Watson was not actually photoshopped (at least not to intentionally make her bust larger). What happened was there was 2 graphics created for the 3D poster for the IMAX release, from 2 different “angles” which were used to create the 3D look. After which, the normal 2D posters were created. For whatever reason, some used the graphic used to represent the “right” angle and others used the graphic from the “left”.

    You can see evidence of the different angles by looking at the guy behind her. In the ‘large boobs’ version, his left collar is barely visible, but clearly shows up in the ‘small boobs’ version.

    Just thought I’d clear that up.

  9. ikkonoishi Reply

    January 24, 2009 at 3:50 am

    On number six it is an entirely different picture with different lighting. Look at her hair and shoulder. She is standing at more of an angle so you get more of a profile view and, thus her boob sticks out more.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Vertus is a market leader in creating accessible ways for people to work with digital imagery. We are a propriety leader in image segmentation and matting technology.

Get the latest news and special offers from vertus

Under EU GDPR guidelines, we need your consent to store your name and email address. These details and any further information you give us is stored on our secure hosted servers and accessed locally on a password protected system and terminal. Your data will never be shared without your consent. We will delete all your data that you have given us upon request. Our full data protection & privacy policy can be viewed here.