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.

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+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+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+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.

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.

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.