airkas1 wrote:Looks blurry and oversharpened, sorry.
airkas1 wrote:Unfortunately it looks hazed.
HarryLi wrote:Hi guys,
I edited a BA 744 that i took few years ago in England. And hope can get your opinions on it as i really like the landscape of it !
http://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 29c21ab274
Thanks for your valuable time and happy new year !
Cheers,
Harry
HarryLi wrote:Hello guys,
I chased a GEC MD11F this morning and finally got it. Hope can be accepted although the weather was not so great because it is rare to see MD11 especially Lufthansa cargo at the daytime and they are keep retiring some of it now. Thus, hope can hear from your opinions !! Thanks.
http://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... c8e1730fb6
And also uploading another two :
http://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 6978c42809 (CX B772)
http://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 7f5770dca5 (KE B738)
And revised one which was rejected by Underexposed :
http://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 01ac5109ae ( The latest one)
http://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 4a7e283dbd ( The rejected one) ''
Cheers,
Harry
airkas1 wrote:CX 777 looks a bit hazed, but passable for me
KE 738 fuselage looks a little soft
The CX 747 is better
airkas1 wrote:CI: looks alright.
FX: a bit bright, but maybe passable.
MS: passable
airkas1 wrote:MS: no problem for me.
The other 2 also look OK to me.