Really, M.A.L.adies? Jim Zuckerman???

In another of their "let's bash people who think Marc Adamus is good" routines, the M.A.L.adies reach back to find a supporter's post from over a year ago on DPReview, and comment as follows:

Best landscape photographer he has ever seen? Perhaps Daniel Ewert hasn't heard of REAL photographers such as Frans Lanting, Galen Rowell, Jim Zuckerman, or David/Marc Muench, all of whom create stunning images without hours of photoshop manipulation.

O.K. Rowell and the Muenches I can agree with. I'm not as big a fan of Frans Lanting as others, but I'll grant he's a respected nature/landscape photographer. But Jim Zuckerman?

First of all, Zuckerman isn't even a landscape photographer, he's a travel/commercial photographer. And to hold him up as an exemplar of unprocessed images? Would you describe this image as "unprocessed?" What about this one, or this one, or this one? Does this seem unprocessed to you? What about this, or this, or this?

Don't get me wrong -- Jim Zuckerman is a talented conceptual photographer. But he's practically the king of the "create a new reality in Photoshop" school. Compared to him, Marc Adamus (and virtually every other landscape photographer working today) is a strict, monkish purist when it comes to post-processing. Invoking Zuckerman as a role-model for unprocessed landscape photography only proves that the M.A.L.adies know absolutely nothing of what they're talking about.

But, then again, we didn't need this example to know that, did we?

Hey, M.A.L.adies? What happened to your forum?

I had almost forgotten this one. On April 22 (i.e. almost five weeks ago) the M.A.L.adies announced, "coming soon," the M.A.L. Forum!

(Sound of crickets chirping.)

So, what happened to the forum, M.A.L.adies? This announcement came just before you started moderating (in other words, censoring) comments to your blog. Of course, there can't possibly be a connection, can there?

Maybe the forum idea went by the wayside because the M.A.L.adies decided that (to be charitable) "they" didn't have enough time to "sockpuppet" enough positive messages to make it look like their forum had, you know, people that agreed with them?

Meanwhile, it's worth noting that it has been thirteen days since the issuance of the M.A.L. Challenge, with no sign that the gutless wonders will respond by showing us their own photographs.

Pot, meet kettle... (5/20/09 edition)

The psychotic clown(s) continue their current favorite behavior of trashing anyone who dares to say positive things about Marc Adamus on a public forum. Today, they tee off on a poster at FredMiranda.com who commits the cardinal offense of taking a workshop from Adamus, and creating some really nice photos in the wake of doing so. Of course, such a person is a threat to the M.A.L.adies, and must be taken down at once! However, part of the takedown involves this utterly bizarre line:

Where is your website, HaloGLC? Perhaps IloveMarcandadvertiseforhim.com?

"Where is your website"...??? Hey, whichever M.A.L.ady (out of a group, I suspect, of one) wrote that: Where are your photographs??? Until you show us some of your work, and release your real identities, you'll get the respect anonymous cowards like you deserve -- NONE.

Meanwhile, it's worth noting that it has been nine days since the issuance of the M.A.L. Challenge, with no sign that the gutless wonders will respond by showing us their own photographs.

M.A.L.adies impersonate...Marc Adamus???

Check out this hysterical thread on NWHikers.net. A M.A.L.ady (posting as "MarcAdamusLIES" and "Eric Hut") starts a thread regurgitating all the insane garbage from their site.

A few posts later, "Marc Adamus" shows up, defending his work in not-very-convincing terms. Then...someone notices that "Marc Adamus" and "MarcAdamusLIES" are posting from the same I.P. (Oops!)

Long story short: in the end, "Eric Hut" admits to having forged the supposed post from Marc Adamus, but says he (?) committed the fraud to "make a point." Sure thing, "Eric"...and the point you made was that you and your M.A.L.adies have no regard for honesty, and feel free to lie as often and as blatantly as possible to get your alleged point across.

But, then, we've known that for some time, haven't we?

Meanwhile, it's worth noting that it has been seven days since the issuance of the M.A.L. Challenge, with no sign that the gutless wonders will respond by showing us their own photographs.

M.A.L.adies: try reading lessons

The latest from the psychotic clown(s) is their "discovery" that Adamus "admits" to taking an hour to edit each photo. Where did they get that impression? Supposedly, from this quote:

I almost never spend more than an hour on an image either (usually around 5-20 minutes on average).

So, five to twenty minutes per image (and practically never more than an hour no matter what the circumstances of the particular image) suddenly translates to "an hour per image?"

M.A.L.adies, I suggest you look into basic reading lessons. Illiteracy is such a handicap in today's world. While you're at it, better look at basic math as well; in particular, counting.

Why "the M.A.L.adies"...?

When I first started this blog, I tried to fit my text both to the psychotic clown(s)'s insistence that there was more than one of them, and my near-certain conviction that the site was the work of one deranged loser. (Although, if you count the voices in his head, you may well see why he claims that there is more than one of him.) But, in the long run, it became way too complex to have to continually refer to "his/their" and the like. It was only when I hit upon the "M.A.L." acronym for that website that the path became clear. Although I'm still sure that M.A.L. is run by one person, I will grant him and his imaginary friends the right to be thought of as plural...and "M.A.L.adies" had such a nice ring to it, both for its intrinsic meaning and what it says about the, uh, testicular fortitude of the anonymous coward (or, less likely, cowards) behind the monstrosity.

Meanwhile, it's worth noting that it has been six days since the issuance of the M.A.L. Challenge, with no sign that the gutless wonders will respond by showing us their own photographs.

Make that the HOMOPHOBIC Psychotic Clown(s)...

I see that the M.A.L.adies are at it again. This time, they've renewed an attack on another Northwest photographer -- who shall remain nameless -- whose sexual identity they had already questioned (then pulled the comment from their website after admitting they couldn't prove their charge). But, then again, when has a lack of facts ever stopped the M.A.L.adies before? Now, they are once again describing said photographer as "an unemployed loser...and worse, a homosexual unemployed loser." (That "worse" really is telling, isn't it?)

Somehow, all this reminds me of is a right-wing talk show host in the 1960s, who asked the publisher of an "underground" magazine of the time "isn't it true your magazine is full of homosexual pornography?" The publisher's reply: "Why? Did you see something that interested you?"

Meanwhile, it's worth noting that it has been five days since the issuance of the M.A.L. Challenge, with no sign that the gutless wonders will respond by showing us their own photographs.

Announcing...The M.A.L. Challenge

The clown(s) over at MarcAdamusLies display one common trait (well, aside from insanity and dishonesty): a contempt for everyone else's photographs. It goes without saying that they dismiss Adamus's own work -- including mocking early images that were selected for inclusion in magazines such as Outdoor Photographer as "bland" and "clichéd." But, if you have ever expressed support for Marc Adamus on a blog or website, you can probably count on a blog entry from the clown(s) about how terrible, amateurish, and downright embarrassing your own photographs are, and what a failure you are as a photographer (and productive human being).

There's one thing missing. You guessed it: photographs by the clown(s) themselves. Despite the criticism leveled at everyone else, the M.A.L.adies have not posted a single image to establish their credentials to judge anyone else's work.

Thus, the M.A.L. Challenge. I dare the clown(s) at M.A.L. to put their reputation where their mouth is, and show us images they (?) have taken, so we can see how their work compares with that of Adamus and the "thugs and morons" they attack on a daily basis. And, considering how the M.A.L.adies specifically go after Adamus and the others for supposedly over-processing their photos, I'd be especially interested to see how little processing is used in the M.A.L.adies' own images.

Failure to meet this challenge only proves the M.A.L.adies are gutless wonders, cowards with no right to comment on anyone else's work, and a disgrace to the world of photography.

I'm waiting.

Pot, meet kettle...

This is priceless...the psychotic clown(s) at M.A.L. are now calling a poster a "coward" for posting anonymously. You heard that right: the site whose owner(s) has been hiding behind a pseudonym ("Jane Wilcox") for months now believes that it is cowardly for other people to hide behind a pseudonym!

I'm reminded of the traditional definition of "chutzpah" -- someone who kills their mother and father, and then pleads for mercy because, after all, they're an orphan.

And, as the capper on this idiocy, the clowns misidentify the anonymous poster as Bryan Swan. Here's a bulletin for the clowns: those weren't from Bryan. I wrote those posts. And, if you want me to identify myself, I have two words for you: you first.