This is real easy to put to rest.
He did NOT use a digital camera, he used an old Nikon, which means 35mm film.
Which means 35mm NEGATIVES. At least 60 of them. As far as I know, you can’t alter a negative with photoshop or any off the shelf software.
All he needs to do to put all the photoshop wizards to bed is show the negatives.
My HP Scanjet scans both negatives and photo paper prints and turns them into digital images which I can then open up in Photoshop and tweak in anyway.
Its a simple process and common process with photographers because many went from film to digital and we like having our old film favorites on our computers.
On this thread, you are looking at a digital image, not a film negative.
I did not see where it stated he used a film camera? Can you point that out? I have 3 "older Nikon" cameras and they are ALL digital cameras, not film. I use all kinds of lenses..even a "multi-purpose" with my digital cameras.
Been done for years in Hollywood. There are film printing devices that print digital images to film. Forget what they are called, but back in the early 90's a company out of the Midwest made them. Basically you inserted a camera onto the device. It printed whatever electronic image you sent it, onto the film negative. So for at least about 20 years, film negatives have been prove of nothing. The reason Hollywood did this was to splice a few graphically modified images back into a roll of film.
BTW - It looks real to me. Lighting is correct. Shadows are correct. Do not know why there is artifacts around the edges of the feathers, but my guess would be something could have occurred during the film scanning process.
Disclaimer - Never did any production myself. Just kept the equipment running. That film printing device was not my responsibility.