"It's Freakin' Joe McNally!!" with Scott Kelby and Erik Kuna | The Grid Ep 575

[@mikek1681]

I met Joe at a Santa Fe workshop. Of course, a more than special experience. But, one story. On our first day in the classroom, some 30 of us, with name tags in front of each of us. Joe spent maybe 30 minutes outlining what the coming week would be like. Then, he said "cover your name tags". We all did. He looked around the room, and proceeded to call each of us by name, row after row. Got every single one right.

[@ErikN1]

Joe McNally?! That’s a must watch for sure! Loved the new book (and all the earlier ones)!

[@patlopez2093]

Thanks for a fun and informative show.

[@jacephotos]

Mr. Mc Nally is amazing.

[@mickeystine3100]

My uncle helped design the space shuttle. He worked in Texas

[@HR-wd6cw]

I have to say, and this is nothing against KO, but it seems like this year, there were far fewer walks than there have been in the past. In the past, I could easily find a dozen or more walks in my area (I'm within the Chicago suburb area) but this year, it's like there was maybe 2-3 for the Chicagoland area). a bit surprising. Even just looking at the total number of walkers and walks globally, it seems the numbers were down drastically from past years....(obviously COVID years are an exception) but I would expect that 2023 most people would be over that (that may not have been the reason though). But maybe next year I'll lead one.

[@kevcleaver]

The NASA shots are , like most of Joes work, amazing

[@KenToney]

Love my buddy Joe!!!!

[@HR-wd6cw]

To Scott's point about AI, I feel when you've changed the content of the photograph so much, that it is not mostly representative of what was caught in the camera, then that's where I generally start to call things ART more so that a photograph. Both are fine, but I think it's when people present their final work (edited image) almost as if it came out the camera that way, that's where I have a problem. Swapping a sky without clouds for a cloudless sky is one thing providing the subject itself remains the same, but as Scott said, putting someone in a field into a background of a palace, that's different because you're changing the entire scene basically, and the only consistency between the two would be the subject subject, but the background in that example is changing so drastically, that it loses its original context. Swapping the sky is probably less of a concern because as long as you don't change the primary subject or drastically change the lighting in doing so, then it's mostly (IMO) "the same" photograph just with a bit more interest/impact in the sky. I think with most tools in photography (particularly as it relates to post processing) there is what most would consider necessary, and then there are ones that will totally change the look of an image or the content. For example, I was able to use generative fill to rebuild the front of a building (a small portion of one in the corner of a photo I had) that had a huge sign in front of it (construction sign) and it did a pretty good job, but it didn't change the overall look of the photo and was mostly to remove something that was distracting. So I think if tool are used with "care" and people are consious about what they are doing (and they aren't trying to pass an AI generated image as a photo out of the camera basically, then it's probably OK. After all, photography is partially an art and really what you "see" as the photographer and want to portray to the end user. I'm sure if you compare your original shots to your edited shots, there may be some that look nothing like the shot did out of the camera, but the overall content likely didn't change that much -- maybe you removed a tree or a post, or some distracting elements, but most "pure" photographers wouldn't go replacing skies or roads, etc. But they will remove distracting elements they didn't want in the photo in the first place, but couldn't help removing (like road signs for example).