steve with an s

Many thanks in advance. 15 (small, low-quality) from New York Magazine, Fashion Week Collections, Spring 1990 to Spring 1993. Issues and pages in filenames; designers in images; models unknown! 1, 2: 3, 4: 5, 6: 7, 8: 9, 10, 11: 12, 13: 14: 15:

Welcome! If I remember correctly, I also found a (I think it was Russian-language) David Lynch fansite, that had several "Gio" commercials. If I find the link again I'll post it.

Has really no one an opinion about this? I´m sad I´m only getting a reply or "thanks" when I´ve posted scans, but when I ask a question there´s big silence around. I'm sorry about that missparker! I've been a little bit busy and haven't had enough time to visit all the threads that I like. Based only on the advertisement that you quoted, it is unclear whether the seller was selling a wet-process photographic print made from the original camera negative (more expensive) OR if they were selling a print made from a scan of a negative (less expensive). In each case, the print could be on KODAK paper from a KODAK lab. Based on the two images you posted, I would guess that the seller scanned the negative and then sent that scan to the lab to be printed. The text on the back makes it reasonably clear that the image was digitized prior to printing. The seller could have brought the negative to the lab and then had the lab scan that negative, but a professional lab would most likely work in a lossless format like TIFF, and not JPEG, so I believe it is much more likely that the seller scanned it. Also, this appears to be a rather poor quality scan/print. It is covered with dust and lint marks (possibly, also some damage to the emulsion). A (good) lab would never have that kind of debris on their scanner. If that debris is on the original negative, a (good) pro lab would have blown it off before scanning. But if it is part of the negative, there is not much you can (cheaply) do. It is difficult to say. That might be a true representation of what the negative looks like at its best (so, the print you got really is "excellent quality"). But I would guess that this print is from a low quality scan, and a little bit of attention could have produced a much better scan. I don't know what the "xdf" signifies. It could indicate some kind of KODAK process, or proprietary technology. It could be totally random and meaningless. About the "soft focus" (not clear/sharp), I would guess that it is part of the original picture. It is possible that the seller's scanner is out of alignment, but I think the original photographer probably missed on focus (probably a tough shot). If this were a wet-process print, it would be possible that the print was made out of focus, but first of all, a pro lab would be very unlikely to make a mistake like that, and also, this was most probably not a wet-process print. I don't have all the information. My hypothesis: I believe that the seller scanned the negative and did not attempt to correct dust marks or scratches. They sent that scan to a lab via email/upload. The lab sent back a print. The seller sent you that print.

Thank you! (again -- I think you told me about that site last year too It's a nice site. Especially since I really like Valeria Mazza too, and he has a nice little gallery.) Thank you domitille!

I think you are right! I totally did not recognize Sophie. (this is where I need the emoticon for "slaps head") It's also, I think, the earliest thing I have seen with her. 1992 ~ she would be eighteen or nineteen in that ad, I think. Her UK Cosmo cover: http://www.tatjanapatitzonline.net/sophie/...ie_Cosmo_UK.jpg

#8 (also an ad for Ralph Lauren RUSSIA) might be Kim Nye. http://www.modelscomposites.com/getlist.ph...ye&year=all Thanks again for your help.

MissParker! I had no idea you also collected Niki Taylor! Wow! How are you?

I think you are probably right in the sense that, for a general audience of people who don't follow fashion, Niki Taylor probably would not get mentioned as often in the context of the phrase "90s supermodel" as Cindy or Claudia, say. But I think there is just no question that Niki qualifies as a top fashion model, and that her name belongs near the top of any list of "supermodels". There is no criterion that I can conceive of that doesn't qualify her. Models like Elle and Kathy, I believe, grossed more money, and models like Cindy and Claudia possibly had more "name recognition", but the fact that Niki isn't in the top 5 in those categories doesn't disqualify her from being considered a supermodel. I also think it's ridiculous to argue over what defines "supermodel" status, and whether someone should or should not consider Niki a "supermodel". You don't think she's a supermodel? Well, fine. I think she unquestionably is. I think most people who follow fashion do. You also mention an absence of runway work. Actually, she has a lot of runway in her career. Versace, Mugler, Calvin Klein, Ralph Lauren. I agree that Niki is on a lot of covers smiling, but, I mean, to quote the kids, *duh*. It's a cover. And she has a great smile. Here is a quick panel of covers I put together (all from Bud's site): One is Italian Vogue. Mid-90s Italian Vogue is not 'high fashion', is the logical equivalent of Niki Taylor is not a supermodel. And you might consider the last one a "typical smiley cover", but I definitely don't. I can't tell if all that sounds like a harsh response to what was possibly just an innocent comment. But I definitely think Niki Taylor qualifies as a top model, and by any standard, as a supermodel. I'm not sure what difference that makes to the universe, but anyway.

Hey, that's super! Thanks, domitille! The last one is a particularly nice scan. I've seen it before, but I don't remember seeing so much of the texture in her shirt or the background. Very nice. Is that your scan?

No. I have had trouble with email generated through the site (though I haven't tried for quite a while). What I do now is bookmark the last page of the threads and put all those bookmarks in a folder. Not quite as convenient as an email, but works out okay for me.

Hello. It's possible you have picked up some kind of malware on your system. I haven't heard of that particular one, but the behavior sounds typical of malware, and when I did a Google search just now for "malware adult friend finder" I turned up several positive hits. Unfortunately, those things can be very difficult to remove, requiring multiple steps and re-boots. But you can get free help removing malware from several Internet sites. I like Security Forums: http://www.security-forums.com/viewforum.php?f=48 One of the sticky posts/READ MEs in that forum has several things you can try yourself to get started. There are also many other forums that provide that kind of help.

The beautiful Ines de Fressange!

GAP ad with Jenny Brunt New York Magazine Dec 13, 1993 p 20

GAP ad New York Magazine Sep 27, 1993 p 2

You are right!

Sweater Girls ph Chuck Baker New York Magazine Mar 15, 1993 p 50 http://books.google.com/books?id=FRcAAAAAM...ad=0_0#PPA50,M1

Oh, that's great! Thank you! The "Who is Gio?" is a little bit frustrating (the "Who is Gio?" television ad, directed by David Lynch, is also on YouTube: ). I would have figured that since the campaign was about fifteen years old, the identity of "Gio" would have been established, and you could find out easily who the model was. But I spent a long time searching, and could not find an answer! It's like seeing a movie that ends with a cliffhanger, and then discovering that the studio has decided not to make the sequel after all. Phhbbblp.

New York Magazine Jan 18, 1993 back cover

New York Magazine Jan 18, 1993 back cover

Skirting the Issue ph Chuck Baker New York Magazine Jan 18, 1993 p 48 http://books.google.com/books?id=BhgAAAAAM...ad=0_0#PPA48,M1

Yes?

Many thanks in advance. Ads from 1991, 1992, 1993 New York Magazine. Issues and pages in filenames.

Thank you again, John, for all of those.

Wow! All of that was new to me! Thanks!

Ooooooh. All of those are new to me. So much Sarah-goodness. Oooooooh.