The photograph below comes from Reuters' Pictures of the year (2006, I assume).
Good shot? Not bad at all, although composition is so-so - the backside of the frog is cut off for some reason, but it is a winner in any case.
But the source sucks. Now I shall never get rid of gnawing suspicion: what if it is a Photoshop con job?
A word to the wise: go to National Geographic with good stuff.