dutch COSMOPOLITAN February 1988 cover + cover-look by David Bailey (re-print of U.K. COSMOPOLITAN September 1987)

"SALE ADDIO" from italian Amica 24. July 1984 #30 by Gilles Bensimon

U.S. ELLE TopModel "Top models? No, supermodels! the competition that makes the stars" - no source, but I think it´s also #6 of 1995. The german edition of ELLE TopModel showed this in their September 1995 #6 issue. If someone has more infos, PLEASE tell. THANKS in advance.

But more back to topic. I bought lately this photo of Renée and it was described as:

"RE PRINT photography excellent quality.

Size is 8 inches HEIGHT x 6 inches WIDTH

Photography re print in photo KODAK brilliant paper, printed in KODAK laboratories.

it is imposible to get this picture from another seller, an exclusive shoot

it is part of my personal collection!!!

I have a good number of negatives of some beautifull and rare artists pics

I am sure that for a collector some of this images be very interesting

so I have decided to print some copies of my negatives and offer them here.

The REPRINT only are sent to develop to Kodak laboratories when i receive the payment

for that reason may take a few more days to be shipped."

Well, I´ve got some problems with this "excellent quality", because this doesn´t look so clear/sharp to me. And why is on the back "...jpg" file printed while I thought this is a print of the original negative? Do the labs these day make first a .jpg file before they make the copy? Or did I missunderstood something in the description?

Because another photo I´ve got of Renée (scanned also with 400 dpi, but is not so big sized in original) looks much, much better and I don´t think it has something to do with being black-white or color.

Pictures are showing Renée 1987 at Nicky Blair´s restaurant.

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.

dutch COSMOPOLITAN February 1988 cover + cover-look by David Bailey (re-print of U.K. COSMOPOLITAN September 1987)

Good stuff missp, thanks!

I wanted to let you know that the new CLARINS with Renee is inside the new french ELLE of the 7th March 2009,

My scans from 1987.

But more back to topic. I bought lately this photo of Renée and it was described as:

"RE PRINT photography excellent quality.

Size is 8 inches HEIGHT x 6 inches WIDTH

Photography re print in photo KODAK brilliant paper, printed in KODAK laboratories.

it is imposible to get this picture from another seller, an exclusive shoot

it is part of my personal collection!!!

I have a good number of negatives of some beautifull and rare artists pics

I am sure that for a collector some of this images be very interesting

so I have decided to print some copies of my negatives and offer them here.

The REPRINT only are sent to develop to Kodak laboratories when i receive the payment

for that reason may take a few more days to be shipped."

Well, I´ve got some problems with this "excellent quality", because this doesn´t look so clear/sharp to me. And why is on the back "...jpg" file printed while I thought this is a print of the original negative? Do the labs these day make first a .jpg file before they make the copy? Or did I missunderstood something in the description?

Because another photo I´ve got of Renée (scanned also with 400 dpi, but is not so big sized in original) looks much, much better and I don´t think it has something to do with being black-white or color.

Pictures are showing Renée 1987 at Nicky Blair´s restaurant.

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 really have no idea about why there is ".jpg" is printed at the back of the photo. Perhaps the seller "sends" the negative to the kodak lab by e-mail (but then there wouldn't be a negative)...Did you try to contact the seller about this and complain about the low quality of the picture?

But he says "the reprint are sent to develop to kodak laboratories" and could be meaning that he has printed something from his negative and then sent it to kodak to get yet another re-reprint. His words aren't very clear I am afraid.

Lovely scans.Thanks snmkytkn.

But more back to topic. I bought lately this photo of Renée and it was described as:

"RE PRINT photography excellent quality.

Size is 8 inches HEIGHT x 6 inches WIDTH

Photography re print in photo KODAK brilliant paper, printed in KODAK laboratories.

it is imposible to get this picture from another seller, an exclusive shoot

it is part of my personal collection!!!

I have a good number of negatives of some beautifull and rare artists pics

I am sure that for a collector some of this images be very interesting

so I have decided to print some copies of my negatives and offer them here.

The REPRINT only are sent to develop to Kodak laboratories when i receive the payment

for that reason may take a few more days to be shipped."

Well, I´ve got some problems with this "excellent quality", because this doesn´t look so clear/sharp to me. And why is on the back "...jpg" file printed while I thought this is a print of the original negative? Do the labs these day make first a .jpg file before they make the copy? Or did I missunderstood something in the description?

Because another photo I´ve got of Renée (scanned also with 400 dpi, but is not so big sized in original) looks much, much better and I don´t think it has something to do with being black-white or color.

Pictures are showing Renée 1987 at Nicky Blair´s restaurant.

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 really have no idea about why there is ".jpg" is printed at the back of the photo. Perhaps the seller "sends" the negative to the kodak lab by e-mail (but then there wouldn't be a negative)...Did you try to contact the seller about this and complain about the low quality of the picture?

But he says "the reprint are sent to develop to kodak laboratories" and could be meaning that he has printed something from his negative and then sent it to kodak to get yet another re-reprint. His words aren't very clear I am afraid.

Hi snmkytkn! THANKS so much for your reply! My husband thinks the lab these days do on their own .jpg files as this old printing method is too expensive now. I don´t know.

No, I didn´t contact the seller. He´s hard to communicate. Also after this long time there´s no way longer to make a complaint. I was hoping it would be discussed after I´ve put this online, but you see what big the feedback had been.

I´m totally frustrated about this and feel so used. People are ONLY interested to get high resolution scans here. After this experience now I´m not going to contribute any new scans longer, especially no high resolution ones. What I have I may post sooner or later, but no extra scans anymore. I totally understand what you said in the Ashley topic about not posting high resolution scans. I´m also fed up to see my scans here or there and not even one word credit is given. I´m so happy I´ve only thumbnails on my website! But even these are "stolen" and used for youtube videos without any credits:

Have a nice day, my dear!

You're right missp about all the people here just to steal images and never post anything of they're own. I've been questioned as to why I've posted my entire collection but I did it for the benefit of collectors like you that may not have certain images. It does irk me when I see my stuff on other threads with someone elses tag on it and in fact, a moron that will reamin nameless, actually reposted one of my scans I had already posted here and took credit for it!

Well, the people who do nothing to contribute, prepare the end of the threads. Less and less people want to scan and post after they have experiences like this.

3 pictures i have found on internet this morning

i love the ones in black dress with her husband.

3 pictures i have found on internet this morning

i love the ones in black dress with her husband.

Hi, guess you´ve found this first one here:

http://images.google.de/images?ndsp=20&amp...sa=N&tab=wi

Face of the 80's; Renee Simonsen

Date taken: August 14, 1982

and for the others I got some links from nita75:

http://lokalavisen.dk/article/20090318/ART...09104872/1266/i

http://plimg.no.publicus.com/apps/pbcsi.dl...00&Border=0

http://msndk.starlounge.com/index.cfm?obje...&imagenr=45

http://msndk.starlounge.com/index.cfm?obje...&imagenr=50

http://msndk.starlounge.com/index.cfm?obje...&imagenr=51

http://www.fyens.dk/article/1207623:Navne-...l?image=2#image

Renée and Thomas at the royal "court ball", 21. March 2009 - HAPPY BIRTHDAY, nita75!

Hi, are both from danish Berlingske Tidende 8. February 2009? It´s what I can read on the newspaper.

Well, the people who do nothing to contribute, prepare the end of the threads. Less and less people want to scan and post after they have experiences like this.

You´re SO right!

Do you think she´s Renée in the left?

German VOGUE November 1987 "QUINTESSENZ FÜR IHRE SCHÖNHEIT" by Penn and german VOGUE December 1985 "Gold-Fieber" by Penn.

Is the one in front of the left page Renée? I can see Suzanne Lanza in the outer left and Bonnie Berman in the right page.

U.S. VOGUE "A NEW BEAUTY CONFIDENCE", February 1984 by Arthur Elgort

This is hard stuff: Renée or not?

U.S. VOGUE September 1984, back says "A DIFFERENT FEELING", maybe by Penn.