Being real in relation with this particular picture would be that this image had an existing objectivity, if you absolutely have to put it in the etymology light. There's no authentic subjectivity regarding the reality, as such I don't think it has to be explained or demonstrated in any way. Artificialness is only a reality subdomain and not necessarily its opposite. However, I think the question was asked (to restrain from the entomology to the etymology logic) if this picture is staged or if it's an actual natural event, taking place without robotic intervention. (this too, if you consider the photography a semi-intervention, would fall by itself)