Real or photoshopped image? Here's a pic on Nikon's site for the Nikkor Z 100-400 lens...does it seem reasonable that a bird would perch itself on top of the eyebrow of a warthog?

chrisg-optical Loc: New York, NY

Here's a pic on Nikon's site for the Nikkor Z 100-400 lens...does it seem reasonable that a bird would perch itself on top of the eyebrow of a warthog? Seems photoshopped to me....what do you think? Here's a cropped screenshot of the image but go to the nikonusa site for the original web image, under lenses, mirrorless, 100-400 lens (side topic - what do you think of that lens?)

(Download)

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

The photo you posted looks faked to me (differences in clarity and lighting), but that behavior apparently does happen

https://fineartamerica.com/featured/common-warthog-joan-gil-raga.html?product=art-print

"Common Warthog is a photograph by Joan Gil Raga which was uploaded on October 17th, 2021."

BobHartung Loc: Bettendorf, IA

chrisg-optical wrote:

Here's a pic on Nikon's site for the Nikkor Z 100-400 lens...does it seem reasonable that a bird would perch itself on top of the eyebrow of a warthog? Seems photoshopped to me....what do you think? Here's a cropped screenshot of the image but go to the nikonusa site for the original web image, under lenses, mirrorless, 100-400 lens (side topic - what do you think of that lens?)

Uh....who really cares?

chrisg-optical Loc: New York, NY

BobHartung wrote:

Uh....who really cares?

Well you cared enough to respond - usually if I don't care about an UHH topic (about 90%) I just skip it.

BobHartung Loc: Bettendorf, IA

chrisg-optical wrote:

Well you cared enough to respond - usually if I don't care about an UHH topic (about 90%) I just skip it.

You do it your way, and I'll do it my way.

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

Africa has several bird species that eat ticks etc. off of the larger wild life and they often are seen just perching somewhere on the animals.
Beside if you blow it up you see bristles and hairs overlapping with part of the bird, both in front and in back.

So I will go with the odds being in favor of real. Photoshopping it would be a lot of effort unless it was a commercial shot for money. And then if the photographer was ever proven to be faking images, it could be the end of selling images to the customer.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

I think it's real too, the shadow is better than the poor focus of the image. Who would do such a good job on the shadow in PS, leaving a soft-focus image?

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

CHG_CANON wrote:

I think it's real too, the shadow is better than the poor focus of the image. Who would do such a good job on the shadow in PS, leaving a soft-focus image?

I just re-read the OP. Apparently, I skipped an entire sentence on first read. The image is being used on Nikon site as example of quality of a lens. Canon would never share a poorly focused example, would they?

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Linda From Maine wrote:

I just re-read the OP. Apparently, I skipped an entire sentence on first read. The image is being used on Nikon site as example of quality of a lens. Canon would never share a poorly focused example, would they?

I hope not.

misterzee Loc: N'Georgia Mountains

I’m going with “real”, but I wouldn’t want a print to hang on my wall.

St.Mary's

The bird is real, the wort hog photo shopped.

Brian in Whitby Loc: Whitby, Ontario, Canada

Clearly this is photoshopped the shadow of the bird is not consistent with its pose. Note the shadow of the head points on the wrong direction.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

LOL

StanMac Loc: Tennessee

I’m going with an actual situation here. The only issue I see with the bird is that it’s center of mass is off center, like it was getting ready to push off and fly away - a split second later and the shot would’ve been lost.

Stan

IDguy Loc: Idaho

Real. Oxpeckers land on all places on all animals in Africa.

Some tout their service in eating pests but they also break the skin.