What happened to Marc Adamus?

by **The Levitator** » Wed Aug 17, 2011 11:28 pm

I think someone I don't know who drove him off the website. I remember around maybe a year ago I was looking at his photos and someone was putting hateful comments on all of his pics about them being photo shopped. Several months later I looked through the GNP image gallery and his photos were gone along with his profile.

by **lcarreau** » Thu Aug 18, 2011 12:51 am

mrchad9 wrote:The drummer looks like Animal.

Ever take a good look at "Boston's" drummer?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcsVPis1iNs[/youtube]

by **simonov** » Thu Aug 18, 2011 2:45 am

Holsti97 wrote:http://www.marcadamuslies.net/

Sounds like a lot of butthurt unemployed (though professional) photographers who spend more time ranting on-line than actually, you know, making photos:

Butthurt Photobugs wrote:In the US, the photography industry produces billions in revenue & services and employs tens of thousand of people. All this has been brought entirely under threat by a new phenomenon: the loser amateur who lusts to be famous. This loser has a job, a house, and probably a wife and kids. In other words, a relatively normal life. There's one thing missing, in the loser's "keen" self-appraisal: he's not famous.

In searching for this fame, the loser trolls the internet. Some of them end up on sites like Photo.net or Photosig.com, where other losers "share" their images and pat each other on the back. They find Marc Adamus' images, or those of some loser who "copies" Marc Adamus. They see all the praise (ie, comments & critiques). Some of these images get ten, twenty pages of comments from other losers. Your typical loser starts foaming at the mouth and hallucinating about similar fortunes for themselves. At this point, half of these losers probably have a hard-on from the excitement.

It usually starts with a quick trip to the local photo store. If the loser lives in a larger metro area, he or she can go to a real professional store and "mingle", getting the feel for being a "pro". The purchase of a cheaper Canon or Nikon camera begins the train of lust. As he/she goes around to local locations with the "checklist" of compositions to steal, questions are also posed online:

Marc, is the 5D really that good? [actual question posted online]
How does this photographer get these images? [the photographer being Marc, actual question posted online]
How does one become a professional photographer? [standard boilerplate loser question posted a hundred times every day]

Usually, these losers are exclusively interested in landscape photography. Why? For one, the work's already been done. Real professionals have spent years taking remarkable images that these losers are usually interested in stealing. Two, portrait, product, or wedding photography requires real skill, something that sends the average loser running away faster than a roaring polar bear.

With that in mind, the average loser spends a couple months getting frustrated. He's pretty good at stealing the compositions, but the colors and feel isn't there. This isn't surprising to a real artist, who understands that duplication is not the path to art of any sort, but a loser is not an artist. That's where Marc Adamus comes in. You see, Marc doesn't really sell any images or license his photography. His images are mainly the bait for the actual, lucrative business of selling "photography workshops" to losers.

After collecting the bundle of cash from the salivating loser, Marc goes on his merry way. The loser starts in the serious business of pretending to be a professional photographer. His first stop will be to get an overly fancy website, probably a $4000-5000 of the same sort Marc Adamus has. Plenty of money to burn when you have a day job, after all.

He will also get a Canon 5DMKII, or even a Canon 1Ds MkIII, if he's really ambitious and has really deep pockets. He will fill his website with tons of bullshit about his "passion", boasts, and maybe even some false testimonials. He will start posting "his" images everywhere. The highest honors he can aspire to is to copy a Marc Adamus images (copyright theft, but Marc won't mind). He will start posting images on microstock sites, including images he stole from other, real photographers. He will never amount to anything as a photographer, obviously, but the loser will cause the photography industry thousands in losses.

So let's go over that again. Loser wants to be famous, so he unethically meddles in an industry he has nothing to do with. Causes thousands in losses for the industry, and causes jobs to be lost because of his retarded quest.

These guys need to start a union and not let anyone join.

by **lcarreau** » Thu Aug 18, 2011 3:33 am

So, that makes this man either a Beautiful Loser OR a Beautiful Stranger ...

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TjWOVUZeJo[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0iP2iZ-gUo[/youtube]

by **Josh Lewis** » Thu Aug 18, 2011 6:18 am

rebelgrizz wrote:Did Marc Adamus ever climb anything?

Well it's hard to say. In my mind that is irrelevant because he traveled a lot in the mountains and seeked out the beauty of the land.

Here is a pic of him climbing up something.

At the very least it sounds like he worked hard for some of his photos, I mean 3 days to capture the perfect moment on Three Fingered Jack, that's dedication.

by **mrchad9** » Thu Aug 18, 2011 6:42 am

Beauty of the land?

perfect moment?

He fucked all that up with photoshop.

Sorry Josh, but many of your images are much better than his. People want to see nature's beauty as it really was... not some digitized BS.

The following user would like to thank mrchad9 for this post
Dow Williams

by **Josh Lewis** » Thu Aug 18, 2011 7:12 am

Photoshopped or not, he still did wait for the perfect moment in some cases in his photography. Irrelevant of what his pictures show. :wink:

Example, the wind blown slope photo, even if he did not use an ounce of photoshop I'm sure it would have at least looked like a good photo. But yeah, it's sad that some pro's make it look like we have not seen "the real deal" with grand landscape photos.

In a sense I consider him a artist photographer. It's kinda like how in the movies they exaggerate the lighting conditions, and most viewers know that it did not actually look like that. But the eye is so drawn into how cool it looks.

Now on a photo like this he obviously used a camera trick to pull it off. The main thing is that the photo is unnaturally sharp.

mrchad9 wrote:Sorry Josh, but many of your images are much better than his.

That's a funny way to apologize. :lol:

I appreciate the comment.

by **simonov** » Thu Aug 18, 2011 4:13 pm

mrchad9 wrote:He fucked all that up with photoshop.

People want to see nature's beauty as it really was... not some digitized BS.

People want to see beauty. Rembrandt used oil paints, some folks these days use Photoshop.

What's wrong with Photoshop?

by **lcarreau** » Thu Aug 18, 2011 5:04 pm

simonov wrote:
What's wrong with Photoshop?

Nothing .... there's nothing wrong with Photoshop, just like there's nothing wrong with guns until you shoot somebody.

FREEDOM of expression. I don't want to think that the SIXTIES completely went past without having an impact on our own perception.

There is NO right - there is NO wrong. WHY does there always have to be a RIGHT and a WRONG. Once again, freedom of expression ...

Creativity is an integral part of the Human Experience. Creativity and popularity are NOT the same. Think about it ...

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7m9TzkrktY[/youtube]

by **BeDrinkable** » Thu Aug 18, 2011 5:40 pm

simonov wrote:What's wrong with Photoshop?

Nothing's wrong with photoshop per se. People use it for different effects. Marc does a lot of HDR images and layering for effect. Which is absolutely fine. A lot of his compositions fall into a kind of "photo-art" category rather than strict landscape images. IMO (and it is just my opinion) images where you can see the seams are not as attractive as less manipulated ones. With Marc's images you can often see the seams. But, he has a specific goal in mind and he knows how to get it. Although not exactly my cup of tea, he does have some amazing images.

I do feel for the guy. Why exactly he attracts single minded haters I have no idea, but they pop up everywhere he goes.

The following user would like to thank BeDrinkable for this post
lcarreau

by **lcarreau** » Thu Aug 18, 2011 6:05 pm

Only my opinion, and EVERYBODY has an opinion ...

BUT ... if you don't LIKE an image or particular composition or style of image, then WHY look at it ????????

(I think there's a lot of people who SECRETLY enjoy looking at photo-shopped images, especially in the privacy of their
homes .... or CAVES.)

by **mrchad9** » Thu Aug 18, 2011 6:22 pm

simonov wrote:
mrchad9 wrote:He fucked all that up with photoshop.

People want to see nature's beauty as it really was... not some digitized BS.

People want to see beauty. Rembrandt used oil paints, some folks these days use Photoshop.

What's wrong with Photoshop?

Nothing is wrong with photoshop itself, if used appropriately. But this Marc fellow overdoes it. His images are completely fake looking and some of them are even painful to look at. If there is something to clean up, like a spot of some sort or a mosquito flew in front of the lens that is one thing, but he goes so far as to completely destroy the original image.

As you say people want to see beauty, but his pics do not have that.

by **Arthur Digbee** » Sun Aug 21, 2011 3:34 pm

mrchad9 wrote:Nothing is wrong with photoshop itself, if used appropriately. But this Marc fellow overdoes it. His images are completely fake looking and some of them are even painful to look at. If there is something to clean up, like a spot of some sort or a mosquito flew in front of the lens that is one thing, but he goes so far as to completely destroy the original image.

As you say people want to see beauty, but his pics do not have that.

I agree he overdoes it. It's fake, and it looks fake. But if you think of photography as "painting with light," then he does have some striking images -- but they're striking like good abstract painting is.

Backpacker has a photo contest up right now that allows exposure adjustment, saturation, sharpness and cropping. In essence, that lets you do some things in the digital darkroom that you could do in the field. Seems like a reasonable place to draw the line. (FWIW, that's all I do to my own images on SP.)

by **SoCalHiker** » Sun Aug 21, 2011 4:46 pm

In my opinion, there is absolutely nothing wrong with using photoshop.

There is a big difference between an artist who chooses photography as his medium and others who take a camera along the hike to capture a nice scene. Marc Adamus enhances his photographs with photoshop to create the feelings he wants to achieve, to accentuate its dramatic or tranquil character.

Why do many people think landscape or outdoor photos always have to be "unaltered"? Of course if you want to show the current conditions of a particualr route or mountain, you should show them as they are. But that is not his intent at all.

Van Gogh did not paint landscapes as they were, he saw and painted them though his eyes and created ever-lasting masterpieces. The important part is that Marc Adamus does not hide his use of photoshop but is open about it. I personally find his photos inspiring and amazing.

by **simonov** » Mon Aug 22, 2011 11:42 pm

mrchad9 wrote:Nothing is wrong with photoshop itself, if used appropriately. But this Marc fellow overdoes it. His images are completely fake looking and some of them are even painful to look at.

Your opinion, apparently. As for fake looking, well, most art is fake looking. All art is abstraction, after all. If there was no abstraction it would be good composition more than anything else.

It seems that not only do a lot of people like his work, they actually pay him to teach them how to do what he does. Some of his images are indeed striking. Not, as other have suggested, exactly what I would want to have hanging on my wall, but certainly more aesthetically pleasing than most of the documentary photography in my Flickr photostream. But his professional haters make themselves look pretty silly with their impotent vitriol.

Ansel Adams is these days widely regarded as some kind of super-genius landscape photographer. I guess everyone has forgotten how much work he used to do in the darkroom, the kind of stuff we can now do in Photoshop with a couple of keystrokes, if we aren't afraid of being attacked by butthurt unemployed internet photographers.*

* Full disclosure: I was a darkroom technician for several years after leaving high school. You know, with film. And foul-smelling chemicals.

What happened to Marc Adamus?

Re: What happened to Marc Adamus?

Re: What happened to Marc Adamus?

Re: What happened to Marc Adamus?

Re: What happened to Marc Adamus?

Re: What happened to Marc Adamus?

Re: What happened to Marc Adamus?

Re: What happened to Marc Adamus?

Re: What happened to Marc Adamus?

Re: What happened to Marc Adamus?

Re: What happened to Marc Adamus?

Re: What happened to Marc Adamus?

Re: What happened to Marc Adamus?

Re: What happened to Marc Adamus?

Re: What happened to Marc Adamus?

Re: What happened to Marc Adamus?

Who is online