Thank you for your feedback Eggy. I appreciate it.
At the moment I wouldn't have the slightest idea about how to change this "plastic look" of the wood, though I tried really hard to get a better result.
The usual way is to edit it using some image editing software....can't think of one off the top of my head but there are plenty of them.
As you probably know, the 'properties' of a material are defined by one of two methods, procedural or image maps. (Mistakenly, and annoyingly called 'textures'...grrrrrr!! )
More often than not you'll use image maps which you edit to fit your needs. You could also 'offset' the UV's to add a little 'randomness'....this means you can use the same maps for the material but 'offset' them so they don't repeat themselves. Lazy way but a quick way for a bit of variation.
For your 'plastic' material you will have an image map which is used for the 'bump' property, (it could also be used for the diffuse too...?), so find out where that map is, make a copy of it for safe keeping and edit the one being used in the material.
You may find several 'versions' of the same image specifically for each 'property' they control...a 'diffuse' map would be wood coloured, a 'bump' map would be greyscale, a 'glossiness' map would also be greyscale but different from the bump....etc etc.
If you do edit one of them you'd have to edit ALL of those related to it so they match....but honestly, its no big deal to make several versions of the same image for each property.
I've not ventured into Blender enough yet to know exactly where material maps are kept but it should be reasonably obvious in the folder structure of the applied material.....Blender may even have a direct link to the 'assets' folder for that material....???
Anyway....that's a start into changing material properties.....the map does the heavy lifting and then there may be other 'values' you can tweak for strength, opacity, roughness etc etc......and to cap it all even those properties could possibly be controlled by maps....it can get endless.
Looking good regardless....keep at it.
Now.....is that a 'Woodcock' you've done there?
If not....I think we all know what's missing here...
Thanks very much for your detailed feedback, and pointing me in the "right " direction.
I'll try out what you suggest, but a lot of it I still don't understand properly.
Anyway, i really appreciate your help.
BTW, my bird in the picture is a wood duck and not.....