Coward Marc Adamus attempts (and fails) to use lawyers to silence MarcAdamusLIES.org

Coward Marc Adamus tries to silence us.

  The LIAR & FRAUD Marc Adamus has attempted to use the “legal system” to silence MarcadamusLIES.org. Of course, his attempt ended in spectacular failure (as will be evident in a day or two), but not before he managed to upend our main site for a few days. It must be noted that most liars and frauds attempt to use the legal system to silence critics and whistleblowers. 

 

  The basic idea behind this is that the liar/fraud has become quite comfortable from the proceeds of his fraud, and can afford to do some saber rattling through his lawyer. After all, protecting the fraud-based niche he’s found is important. The lawyer files some papers and as everyone knows, most whistleblowers/fraud busters don’t have very big budgets. For a few hundred quid, you might make your embarrassing problem go away, for good.

  Not this time, though. MarcAdamusLIES.org has abandoned their current host who, by the way, folded like a wet noodle when Marc did his “don’t you know who I am!” impression, and we’ve moved to an ISP that values free speech and the truth. We’re sorry Marc, but you’ll really have to try harder next time. MarcAdamusLIES.net will be up soon! All the best! 

  As for iPage, we suppose they would much rather host much less controversial material on their servers, say, material from the Cult, uhhh, Church of Scientology or perhaps Holocaust Denial (a favorite of Kevin Mcneal, by the way). Needless to say, if you need a host with a spine, look elsewhere; iPage is an invertebrate.

Analysis of comments by Marc Adamus loving MORON Stephen Penland on Photo.net

Analysis of Stephen Penland comments on Photo.net

Stephen Penland seems to be a diehard Marc Adamus lover & supporter. We find his delusion & falsehood filled posts everywhere on Marc's portfolio. Let's look at his comments on the "Mountain Mountain" image (yes, we will soon be moving to new images, we promise):

Stephen Penland comment:	Our analysis:
Marc, we’ve had a lot of discussions here recently regarding digital manipulation.	Of course they have. Losers like Stephen do nothing but praise Marc Adamus and argue about trivial stupidity like “how much can we Photoshop before people cry fake” on forums like photo.net. Anyone who does this is a fraud and no photographer.
I’ve been on the so-called “purist” side…	A lie, pure and simple, considering that he goes on to create a straw man argument of what does and doesn’t construe digital manipulation.
Some photographers use digital manipulation to make the decisive moment irrelevant; they create the necessary elements digitally.	True. Marc does this (not what he meant, but still)
As a result, many people (photographers and non-photographers) are asking “Is it real?” whenever they see a compelling photograph.	A valid question to ask in today’s fraud-based photography environment, made so by charlatans like Marc Adamus. The answer to the question, by the way: Was the photo taken by Marc or some moron who loves him or links to him? In fact, was the image taken by a non-pro? It’s probably fake.

They want to know if the beauty and grandeur represented by the photo was actually witnessed and therefore represents a real experience, or whether the beauty and grandeur was created by tweaking a base image on the computer to create something that essentially was not witnessed but instead arose out of the creative mind of the photographer/digital artist.	The question is certainly valid. The irony is that the latter part describes Marc Adamus to a T.
I think there’s a real difference between digital manipulation and digital processing.	Of course he thinks that. This is where the straw man is being set up.

Digital manipulation creates something that wasn’t there.	Marc Adamus (and we assume, Stephen) does that all the time.
I view digital processing as overcoming the inherent limitations of a camera and the light-capturing device (whether film or digital).	Lie. Today’s camera has few limitations for the real photographer. For example, Chase Jarvis doesn’t spend any time combining exposures or messing with HDR. In fact, Chase Jarvis made an entire book with the iPhone camera. Fake photographers will always be blaming their camera for their failures, and messing with blending, “intelligent HDR”, or other forms of photography fraud, instead of admitting they’re no photographer and are charlatans instead.
[referring to Marc] You’ve also used to address the limited range of light that can be captured in a single exposure.	Limited range of light? What about film, which serious photographers are still using? It has a far more limited dynamic range than any digital camera ever designed. And again, real professional photographers are not “using digital processing to address the limited range of light….”. These kind of conditions usually indicate that an exposure may not be worth taking. The excuse here is always the sign of a particular weak photographer, who’s in a hurry to get famous on Flickr and can’t wait for “mother nature to deliver” the light show he expects.
So while I’m generally in the purist camp regarding digital manipulation.	Lie. If he was in the purist camp, he’d be condemning Marc’s Photoshop adventures instead of glorifying them.
Unfortunately, too many photographers (IMO) are advertising their digital manipulation as a real photograph, as a real capture of what they saw.	That’s exactly what Marc does. Nowhere on Marc’s main website (Marcadamus.com) is there a disclaimer saying that many of the images are combinations of multiple exposures and heavy manipulation. What a preposterous, arrogant double standard!
To pass it off as such is dishonest.	Unless you’re Marc Adamus, in Stephen’s opinion.

I wouldn’t classify this as computer-based art, but rather as photography that has used digital processing tools in ways that were not possible a decade ago to make up for limitations of the camera.

Dishonest lie. Today’s digital camera’s can’t be honestly described as having any significant limitations. Excellent photographs were being made long before digital manipulation, and continue to be made without this manipulation. An excellent photo is the result of the inspired juxtaposition of compositional elements and light. The best photos rely on strong, simple compositional elements that are immediately recognizable. They have nothing to do with Photoshop, blending, HDR, camera limitations, or any other excuse. Anyone who says otherwise is a shill for frauds or a fraud himself, like Marc Adamus.

Personally, I don’t even consider this to be equivalent to a digital darkroom in the way that Ansel Adams changed the B&W tones of his images in his chemical darkroom.

The sheer dishonesty of this statement is utterly staggering. Losers are constantly trying to paint Ansel Adams as some extreme manipulator or as a man who would have surely embraced Photoshop wholeheartedly. Let’s review that again: Marc combining seven different exposures into one image: not manipulating or a digital darkroom Ansel Adams changing the tones of a black and white image with the limited analog tools at his disposal: serious manipulation that clearly exceeds Marc’s limits. The dishonesty stinks like a rotting corpse. This Stephen character is a simpering sycophant as few have seen in the history of the world. We imagine he’d basically say any lie, no matter how absurd, to stay in the good graces of Marc Adamus.

NEW MarcAdamusLIES.org series: The Marc Adamus LIES

New MarcAdamusLIES.org series: The Marc Adamus LIES

We are starting a new program on the Marc Adamus LIES blog. We will be running a numbered set of posts referring to specific Marc Adamus LIES we find. We’ll start at “Marc Adamus LIE #1" and probably eventually reach numbers in the hundreds.  Our first Marc Adamus LIE in the next post.

LoserPhotographers.com coming soon!

LoserPhotographers.com coming soon!

We’re proud to announce that LoserPhotographers.com will be launched soon. It will be a new site dedicated to exposing the incompetent liar amateurs flooding the photography market with their fraud and boastful claims. Amateur losers who already have careers of their own have no business stomping on the photography industry and putting photographers out of work. LoserPhotographers.com aims to expose and humiliate these idiots with reviews of individual losers, resources for detecting an amateur moron, resources for professionals who wish to protect their work from theft, and pictures and profiles of loser amateurs. Coming this week!

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.