Bad Guy Kimberly Lucas Gorgeousgecko.com con artist!!

[deborahbroadus]

and you also posted this in your data



Now im not sure what all Picasa is capable of since I only use PS... but softare was used at some point.

I use Picasa, it is capable of doing just about everything that Photoshop does.

 

[chamgirl99471]

Thanks for the photography lesson Kevin... I was wondering the same thing about light exposure as I have been doing research. It didn't jump out at me right away though. I sure wouldn't want to do business again with someone I wasn't happy about the first time around but it's obvious she doesn't have the cash to refund him. Dave.. I also have the same policy on my animals

 

[Southern Wolf]

Nope, not just you, Brian. It's ironic you mentioned that, because I immediately thought of those few notorious Fauna sellers when I read the following off Kimberly's site.

http://www.gorgeousgecko.com/terms.html
"Posting details of the transaction, problem, or claim, on any public forum or web site is a direct violation of this policy and will result in the immediate and unconditional void of our guarantee."

I don't know about anyone else, but that right there is a deal-killer. I can't imagine dealing with a vendor who would threaten to void a guarantee if I publicaly make a valid complaint over a bad transaction the vendor has not rectified. Nope, not gonna happen! A true professional with nothing to hide wouldn't even consider making such an outrageous, ludicrous policy part of their TOS.

 

[Southern Wolf]

So Keven, shooting the ISO @ 1600 would cause that picture to wash?

Randal Berry

That would depend on the ambient light in the room.

 

[Southern Wolf]

So Keven, shooting the ISO @ 1600 would cause that picture to wash?

Randal Berry

Since you brought that up I went back to look at the photo. Light falls off given distance from the source... so knowing that I can make a solid white background gray.

Take a look at her photo

My guess is she was shooting against maybe a white melamine board. The hugh of the background is grayish... .that leaves me to believe... that it was rather dim in that location (especially with an ISO of 1600). IF it was semi brightly lit.... that photo would be washed out.

If you like I can do an experiment to prove this when I get home... because I have full control over my lighting and camera settings.

 

[Iraqvet]

Wow this Kimberly woman does deserve the title of con artist...Telling people about YOUR BAD GUY ATTITUDE AND BAD BUSINESS ETHICS voids guaruntees and refunds is NUTS....Maybe you wouldnt have people calling you a BAD GUY if you could act like a GOOD GUY...Even a 1st grader would have enough sense to treat people right and give them a refund..Though it sounds like you got on a high horse and thought you could get away with it..That was a failure,and now your mad...People like you are pretty much worthless in this hobby when you put out BS TOS like no refunds or a no guaruntee policy when people tell the world how you are...You know,you are basically takin food from your kid's mouthes with this stunt..Sure,you would have been sendin $$ back to someone...But this thread has costs you way,way more money then that...Oh well...Some people want to live life the hard way cause they dont have the sense to make it easier on themselves cause they cant do the right thing..Its really not that hard either...

 

[Omnomnami]

You know,you are basically takin food from your kid's mouthes with this stunt..

Exactly what I was thinking...she's so concerned about keeping the money she scammed out from underneath his feet but now she's losing way more than she possibly could have expected...because she obviously doesn't see how much this is hurting her rep.

I would like to personally congratulate you, Kim. You have earned this Bad Guy thread and it will be here as long as this site is here to remind people how unreasonable you are!

Brian, I really hope things turn out in YOUR favor instead of hers and I hope you are happy in the end.

 

[ididit]

I am going to jump in here and wanting to Hi Jack this thread about the image.... the pic is not washed out at all... look at the fingernails.... The high ISO has ZERO to do with the overall exposure. The camera was set on manual. So that say at 125 and f5.6 it was dark in there. At ISO 1000 the exposure would have been 6oth at 5.6 or 124 at 4.... The ISO on digital cameras become more sensitive to light. Adding noise... this is confusing to some but the exposure is not that far off at all... if anything that gecko should have been "whiter" with the correct exposure. You can tell by the shadow on the hand she is not that far away. In Photoshop.... I dont know anything about that other program, I could adjust the the background to white with out touching the geckos. Highlights and shadows. The ambient light was low the flash was used and the light did not hit the background. So the the background is a moot point. More light hit the gecko because of the distance the camera was from the gecko. Less light hit the background. By lowering the ISO the image would have had less depth of field or movement. ISP 1600 is fine....
I know I am rambling hope to I am making sense. But I totally believe the image is fine and has good exposure.
I have been shooting professionally for 18 years. With the new digital camera, I shoot with Canon 1Dmark 3 and 1Dsmark 3.... I always shoot high ISO on location. Which is for Budweiser, Volvo and many zoos through the US. Strobes are not allowed and I consider my self well informed about this. It is silly to not shoot high ISO if your camera can handle it. I am not tooting my horn by any stretch I am trying to clear up mis-information.

On auto if you set the ISO high the camera will adjust. As you CHANGE the ISO the camera with make the exposure look the same across the board. The only difference you will notice is the noise....
Again, not hi-jacking. Just voicing that I believe that gecko was that color when shot. Other than that I dont know what happened. thanks

 

[Southern Wolf]

I am going to jump in here and wanting to Hi Jack this thread about the image.... the pic is not washed out at all... look at the fingernails.... The high ISO has ZERO to do with the overall exposure. The camera was set on manual. So that say at 125 and f5.6 it was dark in there. At ISO 1000 the exposure would have been 6oth at 5.6 or 124 at 4.... The ISO on digital cameras become more sensitive to light. Adding noise... this is confusing to some but the exposure is not that far off at all... if anything that gecko should have been "whiter" with the correct exposure. You can tell by the shadow on the hand she is not that far away. In Photoshop.... I dont know anything about that other program, I could adjust the the background to white with out touching the geckos. Highlights and shadows. The ambient light was low the flash was used and the light did not hit the background. So the the background is a moot point. More light hit the gecko because of the distance the camera was from the gecko. Less light hit the background. By lowering the ISO the image would have had less depth of field or movement. ISP 1600 is fine....
I know I am rambling hope to I am making sense. But I totally believe the image is fine and has good exposure.
I have been shooting professionally for 18 years. With the new digital camera, I shoot with Canon 1Dmark 3 and 1Dsmark 3.... I always shoot high ISO on location. Which is for Budweiser, Volvo and many zoos through the US. Strobes are not allowed and I consider my self well informed about this. It is silly to not shoot high ISO if your camera can handle it. I am not tooting my horn by any stretch I am trying to clear up mis-information.

On auto if you set the ISO high the camera will adjust. As you CHANGE the ISO the camera with make the exposure look the same across the board. The only difference you will notice is the noise....
Again, not hi-jacking. Just voicing that I believe that gecko was that color when shot. Other than that I dont know what happened. thanks

Hmmmmm there is enough holes in the post to where it looks like swiss cheese... so thats what Im gonna call it.

you say

The high ISO has ZERO to do with the overall exposure.

Last time I checked... ISO, Apature, and Shutter speed are all intertwined to achieve the correct exposure..... so yes ISO does have to do with the overall exposure.

The ambient light was low the flash was used and the light did not hit the background. So the the background is a moot point. More light hit the gecko because of the distance the camera was from the gecko.

It's not a moot point because it proves what I was saying. IF it had been in a room that was decently lit... the photo would have been washed out at ISO 1600 with the shutter and apature listed. Which is what I was telling Randal. At only 125 on the shutter and f 5.6 on the appature... the room much have been very close to dark to keep from washing out at ISO 1600. Because the room was close to dark.... she was able to brightly light the gecko and not wash out the solid white background and make it so bright it was blinding.

To prove my point... Look at my sales pics on the white background. I have a 75W flood type CFL light mounted 15.5 inches from the tabletop (I just measured). I shoot with my D90 set to ISO 400, shutter 1/200, f/22 for max DOF. I also have an external SB600 flash that fires... My camera is possitioned approx 14 inchs from the white background... and I still get a slighty gray background in a room lit by a ceiling fan with 5 bulbs and the 75W flood.

But like you say.... there are ways in PS to whiten the background without touching the animals

I shoot with Canon 1Dmark 3 and 1Dsmark 3.... I always shoot high ISO on location.

How are you gonna compair a 1Dmark3 to a Cannon EOS Rebel. Thats like compairing a Pinto to a Farrari. Thats not even remotely fair. My Nikon D90 doesnt even hold a candle to the 1Dmark3 but it will blow away a EOS Rebel.

On location (im assuming outside shoots) you can crank your ISO which also allows you to stop down your lens for maximum DOF... it also allows you to speed up your shutter so you can stop the action... all the while allowing for correct exposure.

By lowering the ISO the image would have had less depth of field or movement.

If you have been in photography as long as you say...you'd know this statement you made is FALSE!

Apature controls your DOF... not the ISO. ISO controls the amount of light hiting the sensor. Yes.... everything is intertwined.... but apature is what sets your DOF.

When in reality.... you should have said.... by lowering the ISO.... there wouldnt have been enough light to take the photo... even with the flash.

Like you..... I am trying to clear up mis-information.

 

[USARK]

This is really unbelievable that there are so many busy bodies here that have nothing to do but besmirch a persons reputation just because you can. You may not like Kimberlys policies Brian. But you knew them up front. you made your decision and you got the animal that was represented. Maybe you got yourself in financial trouble, I don't know. It is clear you knew going into this that cash refund was out of the question. Kimberly has offered you numerous remedies in good faith and you seem to accept, but your continued posts reveal that you are unwilling to reciprocate that good faith. You wanted a pound of flesh not remedy. I hope this all makes you feel better. I know exactly what has happened here. Kimberly told me about it when it happened and I have watched this entire ugly episode unfold from there. You said she should man up? I say you should man up and take responsibility for your decisions and agreements. But I can see that may not be possible for you... to man up that is.

I will not be drawn into this any further in a public forum. I have said my piece and will not respond further. Do the right thing Brian. Put this to an end.

Andrew

 

[ididit]

Hmmmmm there is enough holes in the post to where it looks like swiss cheese... so thats what Im gonna call it.

you say


Last time I checked... ISO, Apature, and Shutter speed are all intertwined to achieve the correct exposure..... so yes ISO does have to do with the overall exposure.




It's not a moot point because it proves what I was saying. IF it had been in a room that was decently lit... the photo would have been washed out at ISO 1600 with the shutter and apature listed. Which is what I was telling Randal. At only 125 on the shutter and f 5.6 on the appature... the room much have been very close to dark to keep from washing out at ISO 1600. Because the room was close to dark.... she was able to brightly light the gecko and not wash out the solid white background and make it so bright it was blinding.

To prove my point... Look at my sales pics on the white background. I have a 75W flood type CFL light mounted 15.5 inches from the tabletop (I just measured). I shoot with my D90 set to ISO 400, shutter 1/200, f/22 for max DOF. I also have an external SB600 flash that fires... My camera is possitioned approx 14 inchs from the white background... and I still get a slighty gray background in a room lit by a ceiling fan with 5 bulbs and the 75W flood.

But like you say.... there are ways in PS to whiten the background without touching the animals



How are you gonna compair a 1Dmark3 to a Cannon EOS Rebel. Thats like compairing a Pinto to a Farrari. Thats not even remotely fair. My Nikon D90 doesnt even hold a candle to the 1Dmark3 but it will blow away a EOS Rebel.

On location (im assuming outside shoots) you can crank your ISO which also allows you to stop down your lens for maximum DOF... it also allows you to speed up your shutter so you can stop the action... all the while allowing for correct exposure.



If you have been in photography as long as you say...you'd know this statement you made is FALSE!

Apature controls your DOF... not the ISO. ISO controls the amount of light hiting the sensor. Yes.... everything is intertwined.... but apature is what sets your DOF.

When in reality.... you should have said.... by lowering the ISO.... there wouldnt have been enough light to take the photo... even with the flash.

Like you..... I am trying to clear up mis-information.

I knew you would.... so not real surprised.

ISO affects exposure only if you do not compensate when with f stop and shutter. That is what I said. You need to read slower

I am not getting into a pissing match with you... I have shot more images than you dream about and make a lot of money doing it.
I am not going to address your " I measures and 15.5 inches." whatever.
I was being considerate your "knowledge or lack of"

I dont crank up the ISO for great depth of field. Read my post, I photograph ALOT of animals in cages and enclosures where the shutter speed is more important.

Again the camera type is a moot point. ISO, f stop and shutter work the same on all cameras. Some cameras have more noise because the chip is better.

99% of people do not know how to use photoshop.... a few do, with layers and masking that animal could be purple. AND not even you would be able to tell

If you have been in photography as long as you say...you'd know this statement you made is FALSE!

Apature controls your DOF... not the ISO. ISO controls the amount of light hiting the sensor. Yes.... everything is intertwined.... but apature is what sets your DOF.

When in reality.... you should have said.... by lowering the ISO.... there wouldnt have been enough light to take the photo... even with the flash.

Like you..... I am trying to clear up mis-information.

this is the only mis-information you bitch about I will gladly clear up. Since your community college course did not cover it. I have been shooting 18 years. You dont hold a candle to me.... I will type slow so you understand.

You are right, BUT it works in different ways also. T

By changing the ISO from a higher one LIKE 400 to 100 you are loosing two stops of light, are you with me? If the starting f stop was 8 you would need to drop to f4 LOOSING DEPTH OF FIELD. That is is how it works. You could also have changed the shutter speed. BUT your risk the chance of blur.
So you are wrong.... Bite the bullet and loose the ego. I did not attack you in the first post. But your charming You know everything shined.
I dont post here because of people like you. But I will post when I am 100%

You need to chill.... FYI I am done and not responding. I just wanted to people understand what is going on... I have better things to do than fight with a know it all.... which you are not. At least with photography....

Sorry to everyone else if I sounded brash. But sometimes things need to better explained.

 

[AltitudeExotics]

This is really unbelievable that there are so many busy bodies here that have nothing to do but besmirch a persons reputation just because you can. You may not like Kimberlys policies Brian. But you knew them up front. you made your decision and you got the animal that was represented. Maybe you got yourself in financial trouble, I don't know. It is clear you knew going into this that cash refund was out of the question. Kimberly has offered you numerous remedies in good faith and you seem to accept, but your continued posts reveal that you are unwilling to reciprocate that good faith. You wanted a pound of flesh not remedy. I hope this all makes you feel better. I know exactly what has happened here. Kimberly told me about it when it happened and I have watched this entire ugly episode unfold from there. You said she should man up? I say you should man up and take responsibility for your decisions and agreements. But I can see that may not be possible for you... to man up that is.

I will not be drawn into this any further in a public forum. I have said my piece and will not respond further. Do the right thing Brian. Put this to an end.

Andrew

Thank you Mr. President for your ever so wise (yet uninformed and biased) input. Had you paid attention to anything you'd see i tried everything i could think of to end this before it even got to this website. The only reason this went the way it did is because of kimberly's own actions. You are a fool if you say i got the gecko represented. Next time you buy a car i hope you pay for a dodge viper, then are handed the keys to a brand new Ram. And they tell you, sorry, no refunds, you paid for a dodge and you got a dodge. You sir are a fool, and our industry would do better without you attempting to throw your pathetic weight around to defend your friends.

 

[AltitudeExotics]

RidgeTop Reptiles, ididit-

as much as i like you guys trying to help and figure out what happened, if you want to debate on how camera setting and functions work, you should take it somewhere else, as its getting way off subject, and besides, it doesnt matter much anymore.

 

[AltitudeExotics]

Exactly what I was thinking...she's so concerned about keeping the money she scammed out from underneath his feet but now she's losing way more than she possibly could have expected...because she obviously doesn't see how much this is hurting her rep.

I would like to personally congratulate you, Kim. You have earned this Bad Guy thread and it will be here as long as this site is here to remind people how unreasonable you are!

Brian, I really hope things turn out in YOUR favor instead of hers and I hope you are happy in the end.

Well said and thank you

 

[Southern Wolf]

RidgeTop Reptiles, ididit-

as much as i like you guys trying to help and figure out what happened, if you want to debate on how camera setting and functions work, you should take it somewhere else, as its getting way off subject, and besides, it doesnt matter much anymore.

per your request... I will not post what I was typing up

 

[Iraqvet]

This is really unbelievable that there are so many busy bodies here that have nothing to do but besmirch a persons reputation just because you can. You may not like Kimberlys policies Brian. But you knew them up front. you made your decision and you got the animal that was represented. Maybe you got yourself in financial trouble, I don't know. It is clear you knew going into this that cash refund was out of the question. Kimberly has offered you numerous remedies in good faith and you seem to accept, but your continued posts reveal that you are unwilling to reciprocate that good faith. You wanted a pound of flesh not remedy. I hope this all makes you feel better. I know exactly what has happened here. Kimberly told me about it when it happened and I have watched this entire ugly episode unfold from there. You said she should man up? I say you should man up and take responsibility for your decisions and agreements. But I can see that may not be possible for you... to man up that is.

I will not be drawn into this any further in a public forum. I have said my piece and will not respond further. Do the right thing Brian. Put this to an end.

Andrew

I really hope you have nothing to do with USARK...Then again,I heard some bad things about it anyways...But if thats the case,you sir are acting like a simpleton....This guy gets scammed,and you only come here just to talk on behalf of a friend??..Why only 4 posts??...Why are you only seeing one side of this??..You should see your friend is the type to help bring this hobby down...Her TOS are worse then those guy's who will sell you dvd players and boot leg movies out of their car...If she is hurtin for money so bad she has to jack her prices,send money out as soon as she gets it,and lives hand to mouth, I suggest she sells what she has and get a job......There is no excuse for her to rip people off cause she is broke...

 

[deborahbroadus]

per your request... I will not post what I was typing up

IMO, it is not the OP's thread. It's a Fauna thread, and everything that comes out that can arm us from this kind of fraudent advertising and educate us on how photographs can be manipulated is VERY ON TOPIC.

I would have preferred it just be "dumbed down" a bit...I was having a difficult time following.

 

[deborahbroadus]

I really hope you have nothing to do with USARK...Then again,I heard some bad things about it anyways...But if thats the case,you sir are acting like a simpleton....This guy gets scammed,and you only come here just to talk on behalf of a friend??..Why only 4 posts??...Why are you only seeing one side of this??..You should see your friend is the type to help bring this hobby down...Her TOS are worse then those guy's who will sell you dvd players and boot leg movies out of their car...If she is hurtin for money so bad she has to jack her prices,send money out as soon as she gets it,and lives hand to mouth, I suggest she sells what she has and get a job......There is no excuse for her to rip people off cause she is broke...

Oh, he defended her, and the immediate response that came to my mind (this was at the beginning of the thread before the photographs threw a monkey-wrench in my logic processes) was "Birds of a feather flock together."

 

[Kristi23]

This is really unbelievable that there are so many busy bodies here that have nothing to do but besmirch a persons reputation just because you can. You may not like Kimberlys policies Brian. But you knew them up front. you made your decision and you got the animal that was represented. Maybe you got yourself in financial trouble, I don't know. It is clear you knew going into this that cash refund was out of the question. Kimberly has offered you numerous remedies in good faith and you seem to accept, but your continued posts reveal that you are unwilling to reciprocate that good faith. You wanted a pound of flesh not remedy. I hope this all makes you feel better. I know exactly what has happened here. Kimberly told me about it when it happened and I have watched this entire ugly episode unfold from there. You said she should man up? I say you should man up and take responsibility for your decisions and agreements. But I can see that may not be possible for you... to man up that is.

I will not be drawn into this any further in a public forum. I have said my piece and will not respond further. Do the right thing Brian. Put this to an end.

Andrew

I don't understand how you can say that Brian got the animal that was represented. The gecko he received looked nothing like the pictures he was sent. I don't think he's been unreasonable at all. If he needed money so bad, he would have asked for a full refund, not $150. If someone sent me a message after receiving a gecko and they said it didn't look like the pictures, I'd immediately offer a partial refund or have them send it back (at my expense) for a full refund. It's the right thing to do. My TOS may say no refunds, but that is more for people who just change their minds. Everything is on a case by case basis.

 

[bsharrah]

This is really unbelievable that there are so many busy bodies here that have nothing to do but besmirch a persons reputation just because you can. You may not like Kimberlys policies Brian. But you knew them up front. you made your decision and you got the animal that was represented. Maybe you got yourself in financial trouble, I don't know. It is clear you knew going into this that cash refund was out of the question. Kimberly has offered you numerous remedies in good faith and you seem to accept, but your continued posts reveal that you are unwilling to reciprocate that good faith. You wanted a pound of flesh not remedy. I hope this all makes you feel better. I know exactly what has happened here. Kimberly told me about it when it happened and I have watched this entire ugly episode unfold from there. You said she should man up? I say you should man up and take responsibility for your decisions and agreements. But I can see that may not be possible for you... to man up that is.

I will not be drawn into this any further in a public forum. I have said my piece and will not respond further. Do the right thing Brian. Put this to an end.

Andrew

Unbelievable! That is some ego. You were not drawn into this. You came here on your own to support a bad seller. According to you, its perfectly fine to be a swindler, so long as the swindler's TOS allow such behavior. As been mentioned, what is very clear here is the seller's TOS permit her to misrepresent her animals and the only compensation will be credit for possibly more misrepresented animals.

Personally, the Pope himself could come on here and vouch for her - there would still be no chance that I would ever do business with someone who operates this way........not to mention I would think a bit less of the Pope for doing so.