Is it Real, or is it ... "Counterfeit"?

This Golden-cheeked Warbler was photographed in texas Hill Country with the Canon 800mm f/5.6L IS lens, the 1.4X II TC, and the EOS-1D MIII. ISO 400. Evaluative metering -1/3 stop: 1/400 sec. at f/8.

I am posting this with a question of my own after reading Fabs' related post here:

http://www.birdphotographers.net/forums/showthread.php?t=34461&goto=newpost

Is this image right out of the camera? Was something taken away (aside from cropping)? Was something added? (If yes, can you spot any telltale signs?)

It will be interested to see the responses. I will post the original so all can see for themselves

Feel free also to comment on the image as well. Don't be shy.

"It don't matter to me..............!"

It is a beautiful image whether "real" or "unreal digital art", Artie.

If it is "unreal digital art" I am looking forward to learning how to create these artistic presentations.

Thanks for sharing; I too am looking forward to the responses of the more qualified.

Cheers,

Adjusted wing

I do not understand the DOF here. The Feathers go from sharp to soft at the connection of the near wing to the body/neck ?

Having looked at it again I think the near wing was added in later.

I can see some kind of cloning lines or something off in the foliage so my guess is fake

I think the head was added in, it looks way sharper than any thing else, and things that are on the same plane don't looks sharp where they should be. My guess anyways.

I guess you were at the Murphy ranch.. he is a real nice guy !
I am not part of the pixel police squad if it looks good then it looks good.

Lou

I too think the head was cloned in.

Initially I thought it was Ok, right species and right habitat, no noticable cloning. Having looked again albeit at up to 400%, there appears to be far to regular straight edge at the top of the head where it joins the wing.

I wouldn't bet my paycheck, but I'm going to say it has been manipulated.

There seems to be a bit of a repeating pattern at the lower left arrow.

Then again, there is a dust bunny or oof gnat at the right arrow, so maybe it is untouched.

My other thought is that the BG has been blurred around the subject to make it stand out more. Maybe even with a plugin like Bokeh.

It is all really a guess though.

Now that you mention it, I think I can see a line from the point where the black stripe dips down that looks like the front portion of the head was added. I'll be waiting anxiously for the revelation!

Ken Watkins said:

Initially I thought it was Ok, right species and right habitat, no noticable cloning. Having looked again albeit at up to 400%, there appears to be far to regular straight edge at the top of the head where it joins the wing.

Click to expand...

I am not sure of what could've been done, either way I like it, it has great light, action, pose, detail, colors, perch and BG, a bit more room on top would be nice IMO though. Congratulations Artie!

Is it real?

Well just casually looking at the image the most obvious change looks to be the addition of a small section at the bottom of the image - it is possible to see a horizontal line across the image. The image also appears to show some work at the top of the neck which appears to be too flat, possibly indicating the addition of the rear wing, but my feeling is the wing is genuine, so I don't know about the neck. There may also be some change to the breast area which seems too tidy and "rounded" but may well be original.

My feeling is that only the addition is to the bottom of the image, the rest may well be original.

agree, it appears canvas was added at the bottom along with the cloning in of the juniper. Counterfit ? No as the juniper would have been there had the bird been framed in the viewfinder differently.

What I dont see as natural is where the near wing joins around the neck/head area.

Hi Artie!

Beautiful bird and l really like the colorful composition.

If I had to guess, at shutter speed of 1/400 could give a nice wing blur but possibly some motion in the head at the time of the flutter. There is an extremely (looking at electron microscope) faint halo around the beak, plus the horizontal line behind the head as already mentioned ... so I am going to guess that a frame or two with a sharper motionless head was composited in?
Another guess is that perhaps the leg was covered by part of the plant?
Also as mentioned, maybe some canvas added to the bottom?

What ever the technique, they all combined artistically to create a beautiful image!

Nice shot, but it is memorex in my view. There is a line across the bottom to the left of the bird, which is probably due to the extension of the canvas, as noted above.

Additionally, when first viewing the image, before reading the text, I was puzzled by the DOF as well. The head is exceptionally clear, whereas nothing else really is. A little of the juniper is close, but not as clear as the head. Therefore, I have to agree with those that say you chopped a head off a rival and put it on this bird. I also see an apparent vertical black match line at the bottom left of the head.

As for the overall image, nice shot, but I would have cut about 1/2 the left open space and doubled the open space above the bird. The left to better balance the image and the top to open up the area a little.

Isn't the white area a little blown out?? You're better at that then I am, but...

It looks akin to the photography equivalent of a silicone breast implant?

Would be interested to know what and how you did this Maestro!

I'd have to go with counterfeit, bottom right leaves look cloned, on left there's a slight straight line in leaves...head where it meets birds right wing has black, which should have been removed, shadow just doesn't look right...great job at adding head...Paul

Definitely the right leg has been either fixed or added, and the shadow produced by the head is not very natural.

Wonderful post processed image.
Beautiful warbler, that perch is great as light is.

No one has mentioned the catchlight yet. Based on the shadows, I think the catchlight was added after the capture -- the position of the catchlight in the eye doesn't match the ambient light, and the shadows look too dark for fill-flash. I'll leave the rest (e.g. whether the head belongs with the body) to others