Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
Why Wouldn't an AUTO Shooting Mode be Optimal for RAW?
Page 1 of 9 next> last>>
Jun 11, 2018 08:36:45   #
JohnFrim Loc: Somewhere in the Great White North.
 
I expect that most people who shoot RAW (or RAW+JPEG) are serious about image quality. The RAW file can be tweaked in post processing to extract the best of the image in terms of colour, details, shadows and highlights. But getting a really great RAW file to work with still requires getting the exposure pretty close to perfect.

Most modern cameras have pretty sophisticated processors and algorithms that deliver very acceptable JPEGs when used in any of the AUTO modes. Yes, the meter can often be fooled by tricky lighting conditions, but a quick look at the image on the LCD would allow you to correct the situation with a second shot if the first is really bad. But I suspect the exposure would have to be really, really bad for the RAW file to be unusable.

So my question is really directed at the "serious" (read RAW) photographers who swear by shooting FULL MANUAL -- why not just shoot in one of the AUTO modes and let the camera handle exposure?

Sure, shoot in a SEMI-AUTO mode like A or S if you want to control aperture or shutter speed specifically. But why not shoot FULL "intelligent" AUTO in a lot of situations? In this mode the camera tries to optimize things like aperture and shutter speed for landscape, macro, night scene, etc, and it often does a good job of that. As far as image appearance goes, the only real "bonus" is that the JPEG will get special treatment when the camera applies SCENE adjustments to alter sharpness, saturation, etc, but the RAW file remains unchanged.

I guess another way of phrasing the question is to ask how bad would the RAW file be using AUTO vs MANUAL to set exposure? Would an AUTO mode put the RAW file so far from the ideal exposure that the image is not retrievable?

To me, having a relatively smart assistant take care of the easy stuff and leaving the creative and challenging bits like focus and composition to the photographer might actually optimize the process of creating a good photo.

Reply
Jun 11, 2018 08:45:08   #
Goober Loc: Southeastern PA
 
Very good question....I am looking forward to see some input on this.

Reply
Jun 11, 2018 08:45:36   #
Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington
 
JohnFrim wrote:
...But why not shoot FULL "intelligent" AUTO in a lot of situations? ...

I am with you re learning creativity and composition, but you're downplaying the importance of aperture and shutter speed to the creative process. The camera doesn't know the difference between a slow-flying eagle and a lightning-fast chickadee (nor whether I want to stop that action or show some blur), nor does it know how much depth of field I want in a landscape.

Reply
 
 
Jun 11, 2018 08:52:14   #
SonyA580 Loc: FL in the winter & MN in the summer
 
I can think of a couple of reasons NOT to shoot RAW photos in AUTO. Action scenes requiring high shutter speeds, high contrast scenes, backlit scenes or shots with critical DOF aren't suited for AUTO. IMHO, not many scenes are suited for AUTO.

Reply
Jun 11, 2018 08:52:34   #
Bill_de Loc: US
 
Making a choice of depth of field, stopping action, or allowing some blur are decisions that are a part of most photographs. It can easily be done in just about any camera mode from manual through flexible program. Full auto doesn't allow for that. Raw can't help with that.

One example, landscape mode will typically choose a small aperture. But many landscape shots look best with a shallower dof to highlight a particular section on the view. If you are looking for a picture to record where you have been, full auto is fine. Otherwise ....

The various auto setting may get you in the ballpark. For a total novice it could also be a good learning tool when you start to recognise what you don't like about a resulting image.

IMHO

--

Reply
Jun 11, 2018 08:55:14   #
CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City
 
JohnFrim wrote:
But getting a really great RAW file to work with still requires getting the exposure pretty close to perfect.


The statement above in your argument is wrong. Rather, you should be pushing the exposure to the right and coming away with a "slightly" to "rather" overexposed image in the RAW file. "Slightly" and "rather" are qualitative terms and need to be defined to our own personal needs based on your specific camera and your processing tools and capability. Auto is going to do a good job on your JPEGs and it's your JPEGs where your statement correctly applies for "getting the exposure pretty close to perfect.

We regularly see examples of recovery processing of RAW files with a mistaken exposure. I'm not talking about errors by the photographer. Rather, I'm talking about looking at your meter / histogram and purposely pushing the exposure to the right, right to the point your highlight indicators are blinking in the image. "How much" and "where" are the issue when you have blinking highlights. Your level of experience with your camera's RAW files and your post processing tool capabilities will determine where and how much you can push your exposure to the right. Context applies too. Are you in a high contrast situation? Or lowlight / high ISO? These situations impact the "where" and "how much" you allow the overexposure highlights as indicated by the camera. You need your own experience to make judgements about specific situations.

Shooting in RAW, by definition, is shooting for post processing. ETTR is an extension of the concept of shooting for post processing. This is not a universal need nor desire for most photographers, where getting a sharply focused image with a "good" exposure may be their primary emphasis and the resulting RAW files need minimal processing beyond conversion. Given the photographer was there at the moment, their camera was set to RAW and they're there again at their computer processing the results, I'm suggesting they also expose their RAW images specifically for that later processing if their desire is to maximize the potential of the results.
JohnFrim wrote:
So my question is really directed at the "serious" (read RAW) photographers who swear by shooting FULL MANUAL -- why not just shoot in one of the AUTO modes and let the camera handle exposure?

ETTR is focused on the attributes of the image in the RAW file, specifically the exposure, rather than the method the file was created. "Exposure Compensation" is nothing more than different words for using the same dials on the camera as you do in Manual. How you maximize the potential of the RAW file via the shooting mode is nothing more than a personal preference. The camera doesn't care, nor does the file, nor does the processing software.

Reply
Jun 11, 2018 08:55:37   #
achesley Loc: SW Louisiana
 
Agree on at times it would be nice to have the camera do RAW in full Auto. Most of my pictures are off a moving motorcycle and is a one handed operation. I would venture to say that 70% of the time, it's not planned affair so you just get the camera out of the tank bag , turn it on, aim it and shoot to get the picture. Then download them later to your computer and get them a bit better if possible. P does a good job though and at times Aperture. But, no way I'm going to be attempting to see about changing setting when rolling down the road on my bikes , car or truck. Most of the time, it's all by feel as my right hand is on the throttle and eyes on the road.

Reply
 
 
Jun 11, 2018 08:59:02   #
JohnFrim Loc: Somewhere in the Great White North.
 
Linda From Maine wrote:
I am with you re learning creativity, but you're downplaying the importance of aperture and shutter speed. The camera doesn't know the difference between a slow-flying eagle and a lightning-fast chickadee, nor does it know how much depth of field I want in a landscape.

Understood. So shoot A or S mode as appropriate for those circumstances. These are still AUTO modes.

I guess I just have difficulty grasping the recommendation I see so often, especially aimed at newbies, to shoot full manual in order to learn photography. I would tell a newbie to set the camera on full auto and concentrate on composition. Then analyze the photos and see what was wrong with depth of field or blur that could have been corrected by manual selection of aperture or shutter speed (ISO would be the last of my worries). Also learn under what circumstances the metering was fooled and how one might correct that by re-aiming and using exposure lock, or by changing settings from average to zone to spot metering.

I really believe that the number of times I want to be in charge of shutter speed, aperture and ISO all at the same time are few and far between.

Reply
Jun 11, 2018 09:06:48   #
Bill_de Loc: US
 
JohnFrim wrote:
Understood. So shoot A or S mode as appropriate for those circumstances. These are still AUTO modes.



They are auto modes which will attempt to get good exposure. But in either of these modes you can control shutter speed or aperture. In aperture priority you can select the aperture, or choose a shutter speed by choosing a different aperture until the camera settles on shutter speed you want. The exposure will remain the same. In shutter priority the opposite is true. You still have control.

--

Reply
Jun 11, 2018 09:08:21   #
Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington
 
JohnFrim wrote:
Understood. So shoot A or S mode as appropriate for those circumstances. These are still AUTO modes.

I guess I just have difficulty grasping the recommendation I see so often, especially aimed at newbies, to shoot full manual in order to learn photography. I would tell a newbie to set the camera on full auto and concentrate on composition. Then analyze the photos and see what was wrong with depth of field or blur that could have been corrected by manual selection of aperture or shutter speed (ISO would be the last of my worries). Also learn under what circumstances the metering was fooled and how one might correct that by re-aiming and using exposure lock, or by changing settings from average to zone to spot metering.

I really believe that the number of times I want to be in charge of shutter speed, aperture and ISO all at the same time are few and far between.
Understood. So shoot A or S mode as appropriate fo... (show quote)
Ah, thanks - I kind of skimmed past the inclusion of priority modes in the opening

I'm with you 100% on not recommending manual exposure mode to newbies until they have a good understanding of composition. Bill_de said similar, For a total novice it [auto mode] could also be a good learning tool when you start to recognise what you don't like about a resulting image.

But seems like this topic was not directed exclusively to newbies, but is more about ease of use for everyone?

Reply
Jun 11, 2018 09:14:24   #
Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington
 
JohnFrim wrote:
...I really believe that the number of times I want to be in charge of shutter speed, aperture and ISO all at the same time are few and far between.
After reading about "auto ISO" on UHH, for a year now I've been setting aperture and shutter speed, and letting the camera choose ISO. I understand exposure well enough to know when to go off auto ISO (exposure compensation, such as dark bird against light sky or water), so for me this system works very well.

Pro photographer Steve Perry posted a terrific discussion (with link to a video) on how auto ISO works for him:
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-517754-2.html#8771285

-

Reply
 
 
Jun 11, 2018 09:20:54   #
jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ
 
JohnFrim wrote:
?

But why not shoot FULL "intelligent" AUTO in a lot of situations?


Because NONE of the Canon cameras will do this. They simply control everything including which picture style and the format of the picture. They will always be jpg in full auto mode.

But you are correct that in some of the other auto modes such as Av or Tv you can choose raw and I do. I actually rarely shoot in full manual. About the only time I do that is when shooting panoramas so that the exposure is steady across the entire spectrum of pictures.

Reply
Jun 11, 2018 09:27:46   #
davidrb Loc: Half way there on the 45th Parallel
 
JohnFrim wrote:
I expect that most people who shoot RAW (or RAW+JPEG) are serious about image quality. The RAW file can be tweaked in post processing to extract the best of the image in terms of colour, details, shadows and highlights. But getting a really great RAW file to work with still requires getting the exposure pretty close to perfect.

Most modern cameras have pretty sophisticated processors and algorithms that deliver very acceptable JPEGs when used in any of the AUTO modes. Yes, the meter can often be fooled by tricky lighting conditions, but a quick look at the image on the LCD would allow you to correct the situation with a second shot if the first is really bad. But I suspect the exposure would have to be really, really bad for the RAW file to be unusable.

So my question is really directed at the "serious" (read RAW) photographers who swear by shooting FULL MANUAL -- why not just shoot in one of the AUTO modes and let the camera handle exposure?

Sure, shoot in a SEMI-AUTO mode like A or S if you want to control aperture or shutter speed specifically. But why not shoot FULL "intelligent" AUTO in a lot of situations? In this mode the camera tries to optimize things like aperture and shutter speed for landscape, macro, night scene, etc, and it often does a good job of that. As far as image appearance goes, the only real "bonus" is that the JPEG will get special treatment when the camera applies SCENE adjustments to alter sharpness, saturation, etc, but the RAW file remains unchanged.

I guess another way of phrasing the question is to ask how bad would the RAW file be using AUTO vs MANUAL to set exposure? Would an AUTO mode put the RAW file so far from the ideal exposure that the image is not retrievable?

To me, having a relatively smart assistant take care of the easy stuff and leaving the creative and challenging bits like focus and composition to the photographer might actually optimize the process of creating a good photo.
I expect that most people who shoot RAW (or RAW+JP... (show quote)


Your question shows a lack of understanding about RAW files, and the idea of "auto" modes. The photographer sets the camera to their preferences and makes a photograph. Either you make the camera do what you want it to do, or you put yourself at it's mercy. In ANY mode other than manual the photographer is letting the camera shape the photograph. It is as simple as that, there is NO such thing as "semi-auto". As far as "FULL 'intelligent' AUTO" answer this question: How intelligent is someone when allowing a machine to make their decisions? THAT is your auto mode, pure and simple. Auto mode replaces the thought process.

Reply
Jun 11, 2018 09:44:11   #
Bill_de Loc: US
 
davidrb wrote:
Your question shows a lack of understanding about RAW files, and the idea of "auto" modes. The photographer sets the camera to their preferences and makes a photograph. Either you make the camera do what you want it to do, or you put yourself at it's mercy. In ANY mode other than manual the photographer is letting the camera shape the photograph. It is as simple as that, there is NO such thing as "semi-auto". As far as "FULL 'intelligent' AUTO" answer this question: How intelligent is someone when allowing a machine to make their decisions? THAT is your auto mode, pure and simple. Auto mode replaces the thought process.
Your question shows a lack of understanding about ... (show quote)


Your answer shows a lack of understanding of how to make the semi-auto modes work for you.

---

Reply
Jun 11, 2018 09:46:33   #
Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington
 
Bill_de wrote:
Your answer shows a lack of understanding of how to make the semi-auto modes work for you.

---
Work smarter not harder

Reply
Page 1 of 9 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.