ADVANCED COMPOSITING & RETOUCHING - Chapter 3, Exercise 2
Beyond Color and Lighting: Other Reasons a Composite Still Looks Fake
====================================================================================

QUESTION:
A composite has correctly matched color and lighting direction, but still
looks obviously fake. List two things covered in this chapter besides color
and lighting that could be the cause, and explain how each would be fixed.

SOLUTION / EXPLANATION:

This chapter names four things that must all agree for a composite to read
as real: color/tone, lighting direction, perspective/scale, and edge quality.
With color and lighting already correctly matched, two remaining candidates
from the chapter are:

1. PERSPECTIVE / SCALE MISMATCH
   If the subject was photographed from a different camera angle or vantage
   point than the background - for example, the subject shot at eye level
   but the background shot from a high angle looking down - the two pieces
   describe physically incompatible viewpoints on the scene. No color or
   lighting fix addresses this, because it isn't a color problem at all; it's
   a geometry problem. The fix is either selecting a background shot from a
   compatible angle in the first place, or accepting that only a limited
   correction (some rotation/skew adjustment) can partially compensate before
   the mismatch becomes the limiting factor described in this chapter's own
   warning box.

2. EDGE QUALITY (INSUFFICIENT OR INCORRECT FEATHERING)
   A mask that's technically accurate in shape (built correctly using Chapter
   2's channel-based technique) can still look pasted-on if its edge is
   perfectly hard and crisp, since real photographic edges almost always
   carry a small amount of natural softness from focus and optics. The fix
   here is applying a small amount of feathering to the mask edge - enough
   to reintroduce that natural transition, but not so much that it blurs
   away the fine detail (like hair) the mask was built specifically to
   preserve.

A third valid answer from the chapter's tip box would be depth of field or
film-grain mismatch (a crisply focused subject on a softly blurred
background, or a clean digital subject on a grainy scanned background) -
either of these two, or this third option, would satisfy the question.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
WHY THIS WORKS AS AN ANSWER:
It selects two specific causes named in the chapter (rather than repeating
color/lighting, which the question rules out), explains concretely why each
one is a genuinely different kind of problem from color/lighting, and
describes the actual fix named in the chapter for each rather than a vague
restatement.