BTW this render of yours is too hard for me to analyze because I have never seen such a thing in real life with my own eyes... also I am not educated about CGI issues. It is a nice crisp render but my eye sticks on the following things:

• Maybe the figure lacks some rim light from those light sources behind the figure?
• Also I am not confident concerning the specular on the face or perfection of that surface... scale of brushed metal also seems a bit fine needing maybe some small displacement and fresnel to refract light. The upper arm looks better to me.
• The glow on the eyes and chest lamp seem maybe to be a photographic convention as opposed to an optical mater... my eyes see "halo" light effects only in certain fine misty rain environments. If there was atmosphere to diffuse the glow it would also maybe diffuse the reflections and incident speculars on the body as well. Glow on figure does not feature same lens artifac as emmited light in background.
• Focal seems very photographic also. Like a long lens... eye is less then 55mm in my experience but I do have astigmatism.
• Depth of field on background but not on figure... is to be visual-real or photo-real? If this is photo-real maybe some chromatic aberation would help.
• Also light seems all same temperature despite multiple sources maybe.
• Edge from figure to background very sharp... usually the edge is lost to oblique angle of surface in normal vision... eye does not detect such sharp transitions in part due to lighting effects and in part do to retina resolution.
• Seems maybe light is cast on background from right aside from light sources in background... figure is raked from left.
• I get a feeling of "uncanny valley" for optical effects despite non-realworld subject.
• Last nit-pick is embossed signature with arbitrary lighting detracts from image... better a flat screen overlay perhaps.

Maybe these comments are very stupid... I do not know. I only say what comes in my head at first look.