Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
airkas1 wrote:GA: looks ok
GAA: looks ok
Polar: Looks ok
Aero: Softish titles & tail
KE: Low in frame
CI: Softish
YQZ380 wrote:CZ 777F: Looks okay
CA 757F: Harsh contrast
Dragon A333: A tad oversharpened on the titles
EMS 734F: Looks okay
Cheers,
Yang
airkas1 wrote:GA: looks ok
GAA: looks ok
Polar: Looks ok
Aero: Softish titles & tail
KE: Low in frame
CI: Softish
len90 wrote:Agree with the Polar. It was OS when I initially saw it.
SF 752: Looks a little OS. Cheat lines near the reg are jaggy
Ethiopian Cargo: Slight OS but probably passable
Mahan: Looks fine
Dragon: looks fine
China Southern: Looks okay
China Eastern: Little too much contrast
airkas1 wrote:Dragon re-edit: dirty in middle sky under fuselage
MU 738: looks ok
CZ 320: looks ok
Dragon 330: looks ok
Mahan: looks ok
ET: looks ok
SF: looks ok
len90 wrote:First off... great to see your Global Africa Aviation has made it to the cover. Also looks like the Polar went through on appeal. Nice.
As for these four.... They look okay. The SZ 738 and the 3U A321 look to have some slight grain in the sky, but it could just be I'm still on my work computer.
HarryLi wrote:https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/1/8/2/4460281.jpg?v=v41b3d85969b
Reason : Noise
airkas1 wrote:The 767 is a bit nosiy, the rest looks ok.HarryLi wrote:https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/1/8/2/4460281.jpg?v=v41b3d85969b
Reason : Noise
Looks blurry to me as well.
airkas1 wrote:The 767 is a bit nosiy, the rest looks ok.HarryLi wrote:https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/1/8/2/4460281.jpg?v=v41b3d85969b
Reason : Noise
Looks blurry to me as well.
airkas1 wrote:Better, yes.
HarryLi wrote:https://www.airliners.net/user/photo-cor ... to/4468737 This one only for one reason which is Oversharpened..... i can't tell from it actually
YQZ380 wrote:Ethiopian and Mahan need some counter-clockwise rotation. Softness does not seem to be an issue to me.HarryLi wrote:https://www.airliners.net/user/photo-cor ... to/4468737 This one only for one reason which is Oversharpened..... i can't tell from it actually
Can't seem to see the photo for this one.
Dragonair seems fine to me while China Southern is soft on the windows and towards the rear of the fuselage. Neither photo appears to be heat hazed.
Cheers,
Yang
HarryLi wrote:Sorry to the wrong Link , here is the correction : https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 7480928761
YQZ380 wrote:HarryLi wrote:Sorry to the wrong Link , here is the correction : https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 7480928761
Yup, I can see the link now! The SF 757 does look oversharpened, especially on the cockpit windows and the cheatlines on the aircraft.
Regarding the special livery, the shot looks slightly grainy/noisy and the cockpit windows are oversharpened.
Cheers,
Yang
HarryLi wrote:Hello guys,
I got a special livery yesterday. And i am looking forward to hearing your opinions here about it ! Thank you very much !
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 8b8a93a4cd
Cheers,
Harry
len90 wrote:Agree with Yang on that special. Also doesn't help you with that glare.
airkas1 wrote:LH2 seems a bit iffy (blurryish/hazed). The rest is ok for me.
airkas1 wrote:KE: soft fuselage
Rest looks ok
SQ: seems ok
KE: soft front fuselage
OZ: soft front fuselage
airkas1 wrote:Capital: hazed gears, but could be ok. I'd leave a bit more space on the right next time.
Air France: passable
Lucky: blurry nose & tail
airkas1 wrote:KE: soft fuselage
Rest looks ok
SQ: seems ok
KE: soft front fuselage
OZ: soft front fuselage
YQZ380 wrote:KE 744: Seems okay
MF 788: Red/pink cast, overexposed
CA Inner Mongolia 738: Soft/blurry towards the front
EY 789: Seems okay
JS Tu-204: Looks good to me.
HU 789 Panda: Seems okay
MU 333 Mickey Mouse: Heavy green/yellow cast on the underbelly. Would that be due to reflections of grass?
MU 333 Xinhua Net: A little overexposed at the top of the fuselage, somewhat grainy too
LH A380: Looks good. Whatever happened to that tail?
Cheers,
Yang
MU 333 Mickey Mouse: Heavy green/yellow cast on the underbelly. Would that be due to reflections of grass?
HarryLi wrote:I re-edited the KE B744 again and here is the result. Is it ok now ?
airkas1 wrote:HarryLi wrote:I re-edited the KE B744 again and here is the result. Is it ok now ?
Yes.