Our first Marc Adamus image critique: Mountain Mountain

Looking at Marc’s images:
Mountain Mountain

We’re proud to produce our first Marc Adamus image critique. We provide a thumbnail of the image and commentary on Marc’s narrative. This is related to the Photo.net posting of this image:

Mountain Mountain (supposedly named by Marc’s son, “Galen”).

Let’s analyze Marc’s claims:

Marc’s comment:	Our analysis:
…I don’t think anyone had this composition either	A complete fabrication. There is a well-beaten path to this particular location, which coincidentally happens to be approximately 500ft from the road
Clearly, there’s a lot of post-production that goes into an image like this in the digital darkroom	The understatement of the century. Of course, in the hands of a master, say David Muench or Michael Fatali, there probably wouldn’t need to be any post-production
…I like to stress than no significant subject matter here is ever added or removed	When you see this particular phrase, it’s a sure sign that the “image” has undergone a virtual Total Makeover in Mark’s computer. The purpose of this phrase is to soften the staggering, ridiculous amount of Photoshopping described in the following narrative.
I optimize my images	Meaningless gibberish designed to paint Marc as a perfectionist.
I do it in every way I can think of and it’s more complex than ever. It starts in the field.	True, but meaningless, designed to impress thugs and imply that most of it really went on in the field
This is a blend of seven exposures taken as quickly as possible	This phrase basically says everything about why Marc Adamus is no photographer. A film photographer or a good digital photographer gets one chance at an iconic or great image, with one frame in his camera. None of the coffee table picture books that sell for $50 or more are likely to contain any images that are combined from even two exposures, much less 7.
This required two blends for depth of field.	If Marc was a real photographer, he would be using a large format field camera for this image. He would be able to use the tilt & shift functions to maintain sharpness in both the foreground and background. Of course, Marc, despite having promised a move to large format (a lie to be discussed in the future), could not possibly produce anything competent from a film camera of any kind.
There was the dynamic range: two exposures to control some strong highlights above and yet retain optimal exposure elsewhere	A fraudulent trick. Do you ever hear Michael Fatali (who is a master of Zion photography) say that he had to blend two exposures together to maintain optimal exposure? Of course not. Whenever you see this sort of Photoshop trickery, you are dealing with a desperate loser who needed something convincing from his trip and decided to patch it together from a whole bunch of differently exposed images.
There were two more exposures for the water, at F22	On a digital camera such as the 5DMKII, this would result in unacceptable image softness due to a phenomenon called diffraction. Marc has heard of it, but apparently feels that it doesn’t actually apply to him.
I combined two successive 6-sec exposures to get the streak all the way across the foreground [referring to the streaked leaves in the water]	A fraudulent trick. Once you’ve stooped this low, I guess you might as well do anything you like. Maybe paste in a sky from another image (who’s to say that Marc didn’t do that?)
Lastly, there was some wind motion in some tree areas, so an F2.8 exposure was made at ISO 800 and blended.	More fraud. A better photographer would have said “conditions are not perfect, it’s windly, I’ll wait for another day”. A bad photographer says “I’ll take 7 different exposures and blend all the best parts together in one “masterpiece”. Needless to say, of course, the use of F2.8 and ISO 800 in any situation is completely unacceptable for “fine art”, which Marc would refer to himself as, of course.
1.All this in 30 seconds or less 2.so there was tack-sharp detail throughout and 3.so it looked the way I envisioned it	1. It’s doubtful that all these exposures were taken in less than 30 seconds. Actually, it’s impossible. But Marc often lies even when a lie doesn’t serve any purpose at all, because he’s a habitual liar who’s often unable to tell the truth when a lie may do. 2.Even the finest rangefinder lens is unable to create “tack-sharp” detail throughout when wide open (see above post). This is an insulting, fraudulent statement with plausibility. 3. Meaningless gibberish. Marc probably envisions all kinds of things, his impending “fame” most of all. This statement’s only importance is that it serves as a warning that the related image is even more manipulated and processed than is normal.