Renee Simonsen

[nita75]

THANK YOU lovely friend!!!

HAPPY BIRTHDAY, nita75!

[nita75]

My opinion: absolutely not!

nita75

Do you think she´s Renée?

German VOGUE November 1987 "QUINTESSENZ FÜR IHRE SCHÖNHEIT" by Penn.

[nita75]

On the left page she is not Renèe. I don't know the other models.

nita75

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

[nita75]

<_< mmmmmhhh...so hard to say! but I strongly believe she IS Renèe!

nita75

This is hard stuff: Renée or not?

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

[66Lucy]

my scan

[66Lucy]

my scan

[missparker7]

My opinion: absolutely not!

nita75

Do you think she´s Renée?

German VOGUE November 1987 "QUINTESSENZ FÜR IHRE SCHÖNHEIT" by Penn.

THANKS for telling your opinion!

[missparker7]

Do you think she´s Renée?

German VOGUE November 1987 "QUINTESSENZ FÜR IHRE SCHÖNHEIT" by Penn.

ANY OTHER OPINIONS ABOUT???

[missparker7]

my scan

Thanks.

source:

"SPECIAL SOURIRE" of french ELLE 18. June 1984 #2006 by Paul Lange

[missparker7]

my scan

Thanks.

search info:

PHAS "GRAND AIR" advertisement

[66Lucy]

my scan

Thanks.

search info:

PHAS "GRAND AIR" advertisement

Hey MissP, This one comes from French 'ELLE' May 27, 1985 - n° 2055 but of course you could find in other french mags like Madame Figaro

[66Lucy]

Do you think she´s Renée?

German VOGUE November 1987 "QUINTESSENZ FÜR IHRE SCHÖNHEIT" by Penn.

I don't think it is, I think the eyes are different

[66Lucy]

This is hard stuff: Renée or not?

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

No doubt, I'd say yes for this one

[snmkytkn]

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

She can be Renee, but you're the expert on her. Was her hair short in 1984?

And the girl behind the mask isn't Renee, I think. I have that picture and many many times I examined the picture to guess the model...But I was not successful until now. Big lol, because I suspected that she was Ashley Richardson for a long while :D

[missparker7]

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.

Hi there! Thanks for your contributions so much!! You´re all so great!

I´ve added now another Penn photo I´ve got of Renée. I wonder this is from the same shoot. The original called "PRECIOUS METALS" appeared in the U.S. VOGUE May 1985, german VOGUE repeated it in their December issue the same year. I have the german VOGUE editorial complete, but the other photos are from another photographer. I hardly can believe they took only one shot of Renée. Does anynone has this U.S. VOGUE editorial complete and can tell about the other models?

[missparker7]

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

She can be Renee, but you're the expert on her. Was her hair short in 1984?

And the girl behind the mask isn't Renee, I think. I have that picture and many many times I examined the picture to guess the model...But I was not successful until now. Big lol, because I suspected that she was Ashley Richardson for a long while :D

Hi dear snmkytkn!

No, her hair wasn´t that short in 1984. But who knows if this shot was taken in 1984 or maybe earlier? The hair is a bit too dark for Renée, but beside this she looks so much like Renée to me!

Where do you know this picture of the model behind the mask from? Do you have the full editorial from another magazine?? Oh, I want so much she´s Renée!!

[missparker7]

my scan

Thanks.

search info:

PHAS "GRAND AIR" advertisement

Hey MissP, This one comes from French 'ELLE' May 27, 1985 - n° 2055 but of course you could find in other french mags like Madame Figaro

Hey! Thanks so much for adding the source!!

[steve with an s]

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'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.

[missparker7]

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'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.

Hi dear steve with an s! Nice to meet you also here again! THANKS for this addition. Your hypothesis sounds very believable to me. Especially now after I´ve found last week this picture on the LIFE Google picture search here:

http://images.google.de/images?ndsp=20&amp...+renee+simonson

Reading now his description saying "it is imposible to get this picture from another seller, an exclusive shoot

it is part of my personal collection!!!" this sounds very, very weird to me.

[missparker7]

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.

Hey, I´m still very, very much interested to hear your opinions about this after I´ve added the other Penn photo! Please, tell me.

By the way, the full name of this photographer is Irving Penn, right?