Let's see how well that rule applies, shall we? While pursuing their photography...
- Ansel Adams worked as a piano teacher
- Minor White waited tables
- Eliot Porter was a biochemist
- Galen Rowell ran an auto repair business
Sunday, July 26, 2009
A new M.A.L.ady Rule
The psychotic clown(s) seem to have a number of interesting and quite...creative rules for photography, such as that you can't be a real photographer if you ever take a workshop from another photographer. Today, they've introduced a new one, stating that Marc Adamus cannot be a "real photographer" because he worked as a part-time bartender two years ago. Apparently, according to The M.A.L.ady Rules, if you've ever worked at some other job in order to support your photography, you are forever excluded from being considered a true photographer.
Let's see how well that rule applies, shall we? While pursuing their photography...
Let's see how well that rule applies, shall we? While pursuing their photography...
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Another challenge (that the M.A.L.adies will ignore, as usual)
One of the favorite claims of the M.A.L.adies is that Marc Adamus isn't really, as he says, an avid outdoorsman, that he isn't a mountaineer, and that all his claims to go to great extremes of backpacking to get his images are merely more of his supposed "lies."
Well, personally, I'd be delighted to have that proven true! Since I am not an avid mountaineer myself, and am undoubtedly not in the physical condition for multi-week backpacking trips in the wilderness, I'd love to find out that those "remote" locations from Adamus's images are all easily reached by car, and that those spectacular mountain landscapes can, in fact, be photographed from the side of a convenient highway!
So, here's this challenge: Take a look at the following three Adamus landscapes (one, two, and three), all of which certainly appear to have been taken miles from nowhere. Identify where they are located. Let me know the nearest approach by paved road. And give me directions, and tell me the length and elevation gain of any hike to reach that location from the nearest paved roadside pullout or parking lot.
For the sake of fairness, if you can show that each of these is located ten miles or less hiking distance (one-way) from a paved road, and that said hike will have a total elevation gain of less than 1000', I will grant you that Adamus may be exaggerating his wilderness abilities. If, however, you can't show such a thing, you withdraw your claims that Marc Adamus doesn't really go to great distances (literally) to bring home his images. So, how about it? (Oh, who am I kidding? The gutless M.A.L.adies never meet their challenges...just as they never back up their claims....or show their own photographs...or...)
Well, personally, I'd be delighted to have that proven true! Since I am not an avid mountaineer myself, and am undoubtedly not in the physical condition for multi-week backpacking trips in the wilderness, I'd love to find out that those "remote" locations from Adamus's images are all easily reached by car, and that those spectacular mountain landscapes can, in fact, be photographed from the side of a convenient highway!
So, here's this challenge: Take a look at the following three Adamus landscapes (one, two, and three), all of which certainly appear to have been taken miles from nowhere. Identify where they are located. Let me know the nearest approach by paved road. And give me directions, and tell me the length and elevation gain of any hike to reach that location from the nearest paved roadside pullout or parking lot.
For the sake of fairness, if you can show that each of these is located ten miles or less hiking distance (one-way) from a paved road, and that said hike will have a total elevation gain of less than 1000', I will grant you that Adamus may be exaggerating his wilderness abilities. If, however, you can't show such a thing, you withdraw your claims that Marc Adamus doesn't really go to great distances (literally) to bring home his images. So, how about it? (Oh, who am I kidding? The gutless M.A.L.adies never meet their challenges...just as they never back up their claims....or show their own photographs...or...)
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
The M.A.L.adies and their sick Adamus obsession
The latest from the psychotic clown(s) -- a screed directed against a charter member of our M.A.L.L. Honor Roll:
It seems that, in M.A.L.adyland, everyone is always talking about Marc Adamus -- even when they're not. Boys and girls, can you say "sick obsession?" Sure, you can!
(By the way, M.A.L.adies, I see you are now calling your enemies "cowards." May I suggest to you that those who refuse to show us examples of their own photographs, and who seem to have conveniently forgotten about their promised uncensored forum on their website, have no right to consider anyone else a coward, unless they happen to be staring in a mirror at the time?)
The MORON, THUG, CRETIN, and TERMINAL LOSER Mark Metternich has been at it again. This time, he's got a page long, disgusting ode to Marc Adamus on FredMiranda.comWow...it sure sounds like Mark Metternich spent a whole post devoted to the praises of Marc Adamus, doesn't it? Imagine our surprise (or, for those who know The M.A.L.ady Way, complete lack of surprise) when we actually look at the series of posts in question (filled, by the way, with more of Mark's absolutely beautiful photographs) and find the "page long, disgusting ode to Marc Adamus" consists entirely of the following line from Mark's commentary on one of his own photos:
I used a twist on the popularized sharpening technique Marc Adamus has written about.Yes, you read that correctly. The "page long, disgusting ode" consisted of one isolated sentence.
It seems that, in M.A.L.adyland, everyone is always talking about Marc Adamus -- even when they're not. Boys and girls, can you say "sick obsession?" Sure, you can!
(By the way, M.A.L.adies, I see you are now calling your enemies "cowards." May I suggest to you that those who refuse to show us examples of their own photographs, and who seem to have conveniently forgotten about their promised uncensored forum on their website, have no right to consider anyone else a coward, unless they happen to be staring in a mirror at the time?)
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Here's how the M.A.L.adies rack up a hundred posts
This evening, the M.A.L.adies posted five "oldies but goodies" to their blog. In other words, exact word-for-word copies of entries from weeks or months before (and, to top it all off, one of these was one of their "PSA"s, and another was the "text version" of the same post).
And these psychotic clown(s) expect people to be impressed by their having more than one hundred entries in their blog??? It's simple, just post the same entries over and over. Unfortunately for my post count, I have this thing called "ethical standards." I know...I don't expect the M.A.L.adies to know what I'm talking about, either.
And these psychotic clown(s) expect people to be impressed by their having more than one hundred entries in their blog??? It's simple, just post the same entries over and over. Unfortunately for my post count, I have this thing called "ethical standards." I know...I don't expect the M.A.L.adies to know what I'm talking about, either.
Monday, July 20, 2009
A dilemma...
For the first time, M.A.L.L. has had to refuse to approve a comment. But not for the reasons you might assume.
We received two e-mails from an anonymous source claiming to know the identity of the M.A.L.ady. A key bit of the primary evidence was that this person had written comments to that effect to the M.A.L. blog, and they had been censored. The author's assertion is that, if it had been a "false trail," the comment would have been approved to throw everyone else off as well. The author may have a point; I have seen other comments approved by the M.A.L.adies suggesting other photographers as the culprits, so censoring this one would be suspicious.
On the other hand, I have to stick to standards of legal and ethical responsibility. If I publish someone's name, and they turn out not to be a M.A.L.ady, my claiming they are would cause damage to their professional reputation. I could get sued; but, more to the point, I have to think about what it would be like if the shoe was on the other foot. If someone were to claim that I (i.e. my real identity, not "Tarzan Wilcox") was behind the M.A.L. site, it would not only be a false accusation, but also damage my standing among professional photographers in ways that might be irreparable, since there would always be some suspicion cast on me, no matter if and when the real culprit was eventually identified.
I would urge you to contact Marc Adamus directly, and reveal the name to him. But, until Adamus himself takes action, or reveals to me the suspected name of his cyberstalker, I'm not going to print hearsay suspicions, no matter how well-thought-out they might be.
By the way...if the person in question turns out to be the M.A.L.ady, I would have to backtrack on one issue: having seen some of this person's photos, I can say he's a very good photographer indeed (which is one of the reasons I remain skeptical). But, he's a photographer whose work could often be mistaken for Adamus's own, especially in terms of moody, saturated color. Indeed, when I put their two names together in a Google search, I found lots of people identifying the two of them as each being among their favorite photographers. This "mystery photographer" clearly processes his images every bit as much as Adamus, and in much the same way. In fact, he even sells Photoshop plug-ins to help others process their images with a more-vivid look! If (and I emphasize the "if") this "mystery photographer" is the chief or only M.A.L.ady, his only motivation would have to be jealousy at Adamus's success, because he has no claim to the high ground in photographic "purity."
We received two e-mails from an anonymous source claiming to know the identity of the M.A.L.ady. A key bit of the primary evidence was that this person had written comments to that effect to the M.A.L. blog, and they had been censored. The author's assertion is that, if it had been a "false trail," the comment would have been approved to throw everyone else off as well. The author may have a point; I have seen other comments approved by the M.A.L.adies suggesting other photographers as the culprits, so censoring this one would be suspicious.
On the other hand, I have to stick to standards of legal and ethical responsibility. If I publish someone's name, and they turn out not to be a M.A.L.ady, my claiming they are would cause damage to their professional reputation. I could get sued; but, more to the point, I have to think about what it would be like if the shoe was on the other foot. If someone were to claim that I (i.e. my real identity, not "Tarzan Wilcox") was behind the M.A.L. site, it would not only be a false accusation, but also damage my standing among professional photographers in ways that might be irreparable, since there would always be some suspicion cast on me, no matter if and when the real culprit was eventually identified.
I would urge you to contact Marc Adamus directly, and reveal the name to him. But, until Adamus himself takes action, or reveals to me the suspected name of his cyberstalker, I'm not going to print hearsay suspicions, no matter how well-thought-out they might be.
By the way...if the person in question turns out to be the M.A.L.ady, I would have to backtrack on one issue: having seen some of this person's photos, I can say he's a very good photographer indeed (which is one of the reasons I remain skeptical). But, he's a photographer whose work could often be mistaken for Adamus's own, especially in terms of moody, saturated color. Indeed, when I put their two names together in a Google search, I found lots of people identifying the two of them as each being among their favorite photographers. This "mystery photographer" clearly processes his images every bit as much as Adamus, and in much the same way. In fact, he even sells Photoshop plug-ins to help others process their images with a more-vivid look! If (and I emphasize the "if") this "mystery photographer" is the chief or only M.A.L.ady, his only motivation would have to be jealousy at Adamus's success, because he has no claim to the high ground in photographic "purity."
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
The Fox and the Grapes (a fable for our time)
Once upon a time, there lived a photographer named Fox. He was not a very good photographer. His work was drab and ordinary (probably because Fox himself was drab and ordinary). But Fox was convinced he was the equal of any photographer on earth.
One day, Fox saw some beautiful pictures of a bunch of grapes, taken by a photographer named Adam Moose. "Hmmm," thought Fox to himself, "I know where those very grapes are -- I'll go there and take pictures of them myself. They will be beautiful, of course, because I'm the equal of any photographer on earth."
But, when Fox looked at his images, he was disappointed. His pictures looked nothing at all like the beautiful photographs by Adam Moose. Fox tried every technique he read about in magazines and books, to no avail. Worse, while the friends and students of Adam Moose all took beautiful photographs of the grapes, Fox's own pictures continued to look drab and ordinary (because, of course, Fox himself was drab and ordinary).
Fox tried and tried. But, although his credit-card balances jumped higher and higher with each new piece of equipment he bought, a beautiful photograph of the grapes remained just out of Fox's reach.
Finally, Fox gave up. "If I," he said to himself, "the equal of any photographer on earth, cannot take a beautiful picture of those grapes, obviously no one can do so. Those who have taken those other photographs of the grapes are obviously using Photoshop trickery to make them look beautiful. It's an outrage! I shall dedicate my life to a crusade against the lies and deceptions of Adam Moose and his followers!" So Fox stormed off to his basement, where he kept his computer, and disappeared. He, and his photographs, were never seen again.
The moral of the story: If at first you don't succeed, put up a website denouncing those who do as "thugs," "morons," and "unemployed homosexual losers."
One day, Fox saw some beautiful pictures of a bunch of grapes, taken by a photographer named Adam Moose. "Hmmm," thought Fox to himself, "I know where those very grapes are -- I'll go there and take pictures of them myself. They will be beautiful, of course, because I'm the equal of any photographer on earth."
But, when Fox looked at his images, he was disappointed. His pictures looked nothing at all like the beautiful photographs by Adam Moose. Fox tried every technique he read about in magazines and books, to no avail. Worse, while the friends and students of Adam Moose all took beautiful photographs of the grapes, Fox's own pictures continued to look drab and ordinary (because, of course, Fox himself was drab and ordinary).
Fox tried and tried. But, although his credit-card balances jumped higher and higher with each new piece of equipment he bought, a beautiful photograph of the grapes remained just out of Fox's reach.
Finally, Fox gave up. "If I," he said to himself, "the equal of any photographer on earth, cannot take a beautiful picture of those grapes, obviously no one can do so. Those who have taken those other photographs of the grapes are obviously using Photoshop trickery to make them look beautiful. It's an outrage! I shall dedicate my life to a crusade against the lies and deceptions of Adam Moose and his followers!" So Fox stormed off to his basement, where he kept his computer, and disappeared. He, and his photographs, were never seen again.
The moral of the story: If at first you don't succeed, put up a website denouncing those who do as "thugs," "morons," and "unemployed homosexual losers."
Another new Honor Roll member: Rick Lundh
Thanks to the M.A.L.adies, we have a new member of the M.A.L.L. Honor Roll. This time, it's Rick Lundh who gets the honor of "photographer the M.A.L.adies admit is better than they themselves are."
While I am grateful to the M.A.L.adies for introducing me to so many fine photographers, I worry that, at the rate they're going, I'm going to have the longest sidebar on the web before long. Of course, as the Gospel of John might put it, if the name of every photographer more talented than the M.A.L.adies was written down, "I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written."
While I am grateful to the M.A.L.adies for introducing me to so many fine photographers, I worry that, at the rate they're going, I'm going to have the longest sidebar on the web before long. Of course, as the Gospel of John might put it, if the name of every photographer more talented than the M.A.L.adies was written down, "I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written."
Jumping the shark yet again
I swear, sometimes you just can't make this stuff up.
The M.A.L.adies, in yet another spate of uncontrollable posting, devote an entire entry to quoting Ken Rockwell on how one should not be too concerned with Photoshop (which they somehow see as a stinging rebuke of Adamus).
Ken Rockwell???
You mean Ken "the biggest joke in photography" Rockwell? The Ken Rockwell notorious for reviewing equipment he's never used or even seen? The Ken Rockwell who insists that "the camera you use doesn't matter," except that using any camera not on his "recommended" list will be guaranteed to instantly cripple your talent as a photographer? The Ken Rockwell who proclaims that the Nikon D40 is the greatest value in photography, and that no one needs anything else, but only uses it for snapshots of his kid? (When it comes to "serious" photography, for some reason his camera is always a Canon 5D. You know, just like Marc Adamus.)
Anyway, here's an experiment: go onto any major photo forum, and start a thread about whether or not Ken Rockwell gives good advice. You will get a veritable avalanche of replies full of examples of why virtually nothing the massively self-promoting and photographically-ignorant Rockwell says can be trusted. You will soon come to realize that, in photographic circles, Ken Rockwell has zero credibility.
Hmmm...I guess that means that he and you M.A.L.adies have quite a lot in common.
The M.A.L.adies, in yet another spate of uncontrollable posting, devote an entire entry to quoting Ken Rockwell on how one should not be too concerned with Photoshop (which they somehow see as a stinging rebuke of Adamus).
Ken Rockwell???
You mean Ken "the biggest joke in photography" Rockwell? The Ken Rockwell notorious for reviewing equipment he's never used or even seen? The Ken Rockwell who insists that "the camera you use doesn't matter," except that using any camera not on his "recommended" list will be guaranteed to instantly cripple your talent as a photographer? The Ken Rockwell who proclaims that the Nikon D40 is the greatest value in photography, and that no one needs anything else, but only uses it for snapshots of his kid? (When it comes to "serious" photography, for some reason his camera is always a Canon 5D. You know, just like Marc Adamus.)
Anyway, here's an experiment: go onto any major photo forum, and start a thread about whether or not Ken Rockwell gives good advice. You will get a veritable avalanche of replies full of examples of why virtually nothing the massively self-promoting and photographically-ignorant Rockwell says can be trusted. You will soon come to realize that, in photographic circles, Ken Rockwell has zero credibility.
Hmmm...I guess that means that he and you M.A.L.adies have quite a lot in common.
Monday, July 13, 2009
Jesse Estes...welcome to our Honor Roll!
So, it looks like the M.A.L.adies had another bout of their (?) usual verbal diarrhea last night, throwing up five (count 'em! five!) updates within a span of fifty-two minutes after being M.I.A. since the end of June. As usual, it was much ado about nothing, with little except how stupid anyone who takes a Marc Adamus workshop is (which is mighty funny when you consider that the only person I know who has taken a Marc Adamus workshop recently was...them).
Oh, there was one thing worth noting: they added Jesse Estes to their list of "people we hate because they like Marc Adamus's photographs." Therefore, we have added Jesse to our Honor Roll of "people who the M.A.L.adies admit are better photographers than they themselves are." Take a look at Jesse's web site, and I'm sure you'll agree he's deserving of the honor.
Oh, there was one thing worth noting: they added Jesse Estes to their list of "people we hate because they like Marc Adamus's photographs." Therefore, we have added Jesse to our Honor Roll of "people who the M.A.L.adies admit are better photographers than they themselves are." Take a look at Jesse's web site, and I'm sure you'll agree he's deserving of the honor.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Giving the devil his due...
I have to admit, I never thought I'd be saying something positive about the M.A.L.adies, but here it is: it appears that they have either dropped their policy of screening comments to their posts, or accidentally turned moderation off. As a result, the response to their latest "100th" post has been far heavier than their previous, moderated posts. The results speak for themselves:
The problem with your mission is that it full of lies itself. On every page I can pick out BS and clear, blatant lies. You may try to sound all "holier than thou" but any idiot can see right through your crap.
All you've done is been kicked off every single online forum which you have posted your hate to without exception. The public already knows just how insane you are.
Attacked, slandered or otherwise defamed? Isn't that your MO?...You can't claim integrity when it's quite clear you have none.
Is this blog supposed to be serious? It if it, you have way too much free time on your hands.
You were never a friend of Gary's. Gary Crabbe is an honest and respectable individual with a kind heart and great knowledge of photography. You, on the other hand, are a first class piece of s**t.
I am honestly wondering if the person who runs this site is mentally disabled, disturbed or something.As I said, I commend the M.A.L.adies on having the courage to post these responses. Now, I can only hope they also find the wisdom to realize that their actions are accomplishing nothing except to bring themselves into disrepute, and make the smart decision to call off their ridiculous vendetta.
Sunday, July 5, 2009
Paging Alan (HaloGLC) and Paul DeCesare...
I've completed adding the photographers mentioned on the M.A.L.adies' blog site (so far -- I'm sure there will be more to come) to our Honor Roll. However, I don't have web sites to link to for two of the members, and I don't even have a full name for one of them. Paul DeCesare (PaulD on PNWNP) and Alan (HaloGLC on FredMiranda.com), if you see this, could you post a link to your web site or gallery in the comments, so I can update the Honor Roll again?
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Something New: The "Marc Adamus Lies"...Lies! Honor Roll
One thing that has become obvious over the past few weeks is that the M.A.L.adies (or, far more likely, M.A.L.ady) are/is obsessed not only with Marc Adamus himself, but with an increasingly large number of other photographers they have accused of being "thugs," "morons," and "useful idiots" in Marc Adamus' "reign of terror." Since there is clearly no "reign of terror" (except for a number of photographers admiring the work of someone the M.A.L.adies detest), this is clearly not the reason for the M.A.L.adies' unbelievably-personal animosity toward them.
I tend to suspect that the answer is somewhat simpler. Since the M.A.L.adies obviously are bitter over their own inability to produce landscape work that measures up to Adamus's, so they likewise detest these other photographers for turning out quality work that they themselves can't equal. Hey, if you can't build yourself up, tear those better than yourself down. Right?
Hence, I think it's time this site recognize and honor those photographers whose art has generated such an extreme case of "sour grapes" among the M.A.L.adies. From now on, a M.A.L.L. Honor Roll sidebar will appear on this site, with the names of the honored photographers and (as often as possible) links to their work so visitors can see what great images drove the M.A.L.adies to heights of envy-driven rage.
For the moment, this list is restricted to those originally placed on the M.A.L.adies' "thugs" and "useful idiots" lists on their main site. However, they have singled out many additional photographers for similar treatment on their blog site, and as soon as I have a chance to go through their hundred-whatever posts and record the names, those names will be added as well.
It's long past time that denunciation by the M.A.L.adies become recognized for what it is: a badge of honor.
I tend to suspect that the answer is somewhat simpler. Since the M.A.L.adies obviously are bitter over their own inability to produce landscape work that measures up to Adamus's, so they likewise detest these other photographers for turning out quality work that they themselves can't equal. Hey, if you can't build yourself up, tear those better than yourself down. Right?
Hence, I think it's time this site recognize and honor those photographers whose art has generated such an extreme case of "sour grapes" among the M.A.L.adies. From now on, a M.A.L.L. Honor Roll sidebar will appear on this site, with the names of the honored photographers and (as often as possible) links to their work so visitors can see what great images drove the M.A.L.adies to heights of envy-driven rage.
For the moment, this list is restricted to those originally placed on the M.A.L.adies' "thugs" and "useful idiots" lists on their main site. However, they have singled out many additional photographers for similar treatment on their blog site, and as soon as I have a chance to go through their hundred-whatever posts and record the names, those names will be added as well.
It's long past time that denunciation by the M.A.L.adies become recognized for what it is: a badge of honor.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)