A look at THUG & IDIOT responses to the unveiling of Marc Adamus LIES 2.0 on Photo.net Marc Adamus portfolio

A look at THUG/IDIOT responses to MAL 2.0

We look at the reactions from some of the Marc-loving morons on Photo.net, where we introduced Marc and his acolytes to the new MarcAdamusLIES.org. This post refers to the "Mountain Mountain image", which is also critiqued by Marc Adamus LIES 2.0 here.

 Of course, anyone who spends his time online either posting or commenting on images is a moron by default. Real photographers don’t sit on their chairs and argue about Canon vs Nikon, whether Marc is the best “photographer” of all time or merely of the last century, or selling each other “photography workshops”.

 Does Art Wolfe post his images on Photosig or Flickr? Would Ansel Adams ask for “comments and critiques” from a bunch of nameless jerkoffs he’d never met? Of course not.

A moron called Jeremy Moore: Ha there goes jealous loser guy again, what a load of s#!t	Jeremy failed to be specific about exactly why we are envious of Marc. Could be it that we are envious of his pathetic 2-3 print sales a month? Or maybe we’re envious of the fact that he has to “teach” fraudulent photography workshops just to pay the rent. Either way, Jeremy wasn’t clear which one of these we envy Marc for.
A moron called John Lasseter: I thought that idiot zombie site had finally gone away. Sorry you have to deal with that, Marc. What a pain.	Of course John is sorry. He’d much rather Marc toss his salad or show him how to blur clouds.
A moron called Lalit Deshmukh: Marc, there are many such cowards there.	Could Lalit be more specific? Is anyone who criticizes a Marc Adamus image a coward? Or merely anyone who thinks Marc pushed the envelope with the latest bullshit story?
A moron called Mark Geistweite: Finally, is it just me or does one of your commenters have a wheel spinning in the sand. Talk about beating a dead horse..	By the “beating a dead horse” comment, we assume Mark is tired of just hearing about how a good a liar Marc Adamus is; he wants to know how he can be one too.
A simpering idiot called Igor Leonidovich Mestman: Mark, none of this is intended as a hint at a critique	Poor Igor, trembling in his boots as he tries to convince Marc that he wouldn’t think of “critiquing” a Marc image.
A moron called Alberto Dall’Oglio: I’m sorry if you are a victim of internet stupidity and people’s jealousy, but I think this just underlines how great you are.	See Jeremy Moore. Alberto fails to clarify exactly what we are jealous of. As for the second comment, we suspect Alberto is merely referring to the size of Marc’s member; many of these toadies have sexual obsessions with Marc Adamus

The Jeremy Moore idiot again: 1. This stupid mal site is a load of crap, don’t even waste… 2. the guy apparently doesn’t understand art and he’s just a jealous jerk off loser that is using marcs name to try to be popular…..pathetic	1. Again, Jeremy fails to clarify how Marc Adamus LIES 2.0 is a “load of crap”. Probably too much of a burden for poor Jeremy. 2. Jeremy fails to explain how Marc Adamus LIES hopes to become “popular” using Marc’s name. We are probably expecting too much. Jeremy might know how to “trip Marc’s shutter”, but anything beyond that is a real struggle.
The Alberto Dall’Oglio idiot again: Let only your works and your art talk; nothing more.	We guessed old Alberto missed a beat here. If Marc were only to post his images and leave out the extensive bullshit we’ve all come to expect, he’d sell a lot fewer workshops. And selling workshops is what it’s all about. Obviously, Marc won’t be taking Alberto’s advice in this case. The more Marc’s mouth runs, the more Alberto and idiots like him feel the rise in their pants.

Analysis of Marc Adamus' response to Marc Adamus LIES 2.0

A look at Marc's response to MAL 2.0

Now that Marc Adamus is aware of the NEW Marc Adamus LIES 2.0, how has he reacted to the news?

First of all, let me say that we never expected Marc Adamus to burst into tears, admit he's a fraud and a liar, and promise to do better in the future. We would have been as surprised as anyone if that had happened. We fully expected Marc's actual response, one akin to that of a rat backed into a corner: snarl and show its teeth.

Here's our analysis of selected Marc statements on photo.net, which were posted in response to our initial posts on one of his images there:

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

Marc’s Comment	Our commentary
On one hand, it should be clear the guy is a nutcase...	Pure speculation. We could also say Marc is a complete nutcase. That would be about as plausible as Marc's statement. Actually, it would probably be more plausible, knowing what we know about his character, or lack thereof.
...who refuses to accept the inevitable, case closed.	What, exactly, is inevitable? That Marc gets his way and this embarassment just "goes away"? Or maybe  that his idiot admirers will continue to ignore the avalanche of evidence that Marc is a fraud? Either way, Marc didn't elaborate. One thing is certain. He does like to pretend like he's totally in control of the situation.
...it's really disturbing to know someone out there like that really exists.	Someone like what? Marc is the master of vague, misleading statements. Is he trying to say that it's disturbing to know that there's someone out there who's willing to expose charlatans? Every crook on the planet has tried the "poor me, I'm so scared, I'm being persecuted" approach at one time or another.
My family and I were certainly concerned at the sheer depths of his utterely disgusting postings last time.	While Marc Adamus LIES 1.0 was run by two other folks, we'll take our best shot here: What was disgusting about their posts? Marc didn't feel any concern because Marc Adamus LIES 1.0 never made any threats against Marc. On the other hand, his admirers made many material threats of violence against Marc Adamus LIES 1.0, and we fully expect them to make threats against Marc Adamus LIES 2.0.
Makes you think... and perhaps worry where it's all going.	People should definitely be worried....about frauds like Marc Adamus. Every action he takes damages the photography industry and causes an honest photographer somewhere to come closer to losing his job. It's worrying that a fraud like Marc can be celebrated for his actions, instead of condemned. Of course, Marc actually implied that he was afraid for his life: absolute bollocks; see above.
Still though, just scary!	Marc trying to convince everyone that he's shaking in his boots.
For a father of a two-year-old and a family to support, just scary to know someone like that is out there.	The  tragic thing about all this is that a charlatan started a family. A liar and a fraud has no business getting involved in the delicate business of supporting a family.
No one should EVER apologize for critiquing my work.	This statement is a sham and a fraud. Marc has called people who don't give him top ratings "stupid".
Marc’s Comment	Our commentary
...that's no excuse for breaking down and dedicating your life to the fruitless pursuit of destroying a fellow photographer.	Marc isn't a "fellow photographer". He makes his money selling fraudulent photography "workshops" to drooling idiots who are attracted to his fake images. Real photographers sell images. Does the popular phrase "those who can't do, teach" ring a bell here?
You don't know anything about me and obviously, never will.	Meaningless gibberish. We have access to all the online info that everyone else does. Marc barely even exists off the internet. Many of the losers out there claim to be Marc's friend, yet have never met him, or met him once or twice.
I invite anyone to check out your site right now. Check out those lies. Wow.	Note that Marc didn't specify any of the "lies" or provide rebuttals to any statements, preferring instead to use a sweeping generalization to dismiss us in the eyes of his loser worshippers.. Right now, he's posturing for the benefit of the hundreds of admirers who are looking on. The last thing in the world that Marc would want is to have to actually provide a meaningful rebuttal to MarcAdamusLIES.org.
Such a sorry site I doubt any of us have ever seen online and that's really saying a lot!	Meaningless gibberish. MarcAdamusLIES.org has a mission, and it's not winning design contest. Of course, we don't have $5000 for a website the way Marc does. When daddy is paying half your bills, it's easy to look flashly and like the real thing.
It's barely worth mentioning you make it all up, everyone knows this.	Meaningless gibberish. Note again that not a single MarcAdamusLIES.org charge was addressed.
You can fake anything you want online, but not forever.	The irony here is utterly profound, since it applies to Marc, and he's finding that out the hard way.
I will be formally be done responding to your obsessive, pathetic attacks now. Everyone knows the truth, The thing I think crazy people don't understand is, you just can't hide it!	"Formally be done"? Wow, color us impressed. And what is this "truth" that everyone knows? Why doesn't Marc humor us and tell us this "truth"? Here's some actual "truth", for the record: 1. Marc fraudulently claims on his website that he is one of the most acclaimed photographers of his time, a utterly ridiculous boast. 2.Without his scam photography workshops, Marc would make less money than a minimum wage McDonalds worker. 3.Marc wants to be famous, and even admitted it, before pulling it off the web for fears of being exposed for the egotistic fraud that he really is.

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.