JohnFrim Loc: Somewhere in the Great White North.

I respectfully yield to CHG_CANON and a few others who pointed out that ETTR (or even EBTR and UniWB) may produce a richer RAW file than one exposed for the best SOOC JPEG, implying that the auto-mode-recorded RAW file is less than optimal. But if I were to split hairs I would say those exposure techniques would result in "maximal" RAW files with respect to exposure.

I was thinking of "optimal" applying more to the overall process of getting a shot, rather than to just the exposure setting alone. My point is that letting the camera take care of exposure allows me to concentrate on what I feel is important (motion blur, depth of field) and to make decisions on photographic elements like composition and selective focus that are still a challenge for automation. Given that RAW files have considerably more latitude for PP adjustment than JPEGs I was postulating that if shooting RAW it may not be necessary to adjust ALL 3 exposure parameters manually in order to get a RAW file that will result in a good photo. The exposure may not be the ultimate best, but the overall process may be optimal.

JohnFrim Loc: Somewhere in the Great White North.

Thanks for confirming that. I could not imaging that not being the case.

Regarding your previous comment about my question being focussed on exposure only, see my recent reply to CHG_CANON and others. I really intended the word "optimal" to apply to the overall process, as stated in the last sentence of my original post.

And for those saying I don't understand camera modes, in my opinion there is only 1 FULL MANUAL (exposure) mode; it is where the photographer sets shutter speed, aperture and ISO. Any other mode includes some sort of automatic process to set 1, 2, or all 3 exposure parameters. If you are using A, S, P, AUTO, iAUTO, AUTO+, or any Scene Mode you are NOT shooting FULL MANUAL. Feel free to call them SEMI-AUTO or SEMI-MANUAL if you like.

tdekany Loc: Oregon

While your statement is true, it doesn’t really matter if the photographer lacks creativity. There are no shortages of snapshots in full manual mode.

frjack Loc: Boston, MA

Intelligent auto is an oxymoron. Homogenized results is more apt.

steveg48

As others have stated you are giving up control if you shoot in Auto. Before you take the picture you need an artistic intent if you want something more than a snapshot. You must decide what depth of field you want and whether you want to freeze or blur motion. --- You can not evaluate the exposure well by looking at the LCD because that varies with ambient lighting conditions and to what brightness you have set the LCD. The best way to evaluate the exposure is to look at the histogram.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

Shooting RAW will not guarantee quality images. I am quite sure that you know that quality begins with a good exposure and excellent visual design. An Auto mode will not guarantee anyone a good exposure.
In my particular case I want to be in control of the camera. My cameras do not know what I want from them and a good example is photographing bright subjects. No camera on earth knows what to do to make those bright objects bright in the final image. Composition is more flexible and can be used with any Auto mode.
Modern JPEG images have excellent quality if the operator of the camera does not overdo it when setting parameters like sharpness and contrast, both of which are easily applied with an editor. Some of my best enlargments were made from original JPEG images.
As you already said a RAW file is very flexible and properly exposed offers the photographer data that can be manipulated much better than a JPEG file but if the operator is not skillful enough during editing the chances are excellent that RAW file went to waste. What I am saying is that a RAW file needs skillful post processing to bring on all of its goodness.
Start out with a good exposure and good visual design if you want to be rewarded with an excellent file.

Bultaco Loc: Aiken, SC

Well put

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

There's another thread at the moment about Program (Professional) mode. The difference between full Auto and P is that in Program, the photographer can adjust the exposure settings determined by the camera (aka Auto). So, adding a bit of exposure compensation to the exposure calculated by Auto gives the RAW shooter the control to push the exposure for RAW processing without having to consider everything in Manual or the Shutter or Aperture, in their respective modes.

Stepping away from exposure and instead considering composition, I chuckled at the earlier observation of manual-mode snapshots. The method of exposure is not the distinguishing characteristic. Without derailing the discussion, I wonder if the discussion about exposure is the final frontier for photographers who already manage their points of focus. Do they have the 1/3 grids in their view finder? Do they use a single or small cluster set at one of the intersections when shooting? Do they use continuous focus or single shot? Do they still have their camera set to beep?

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

John, the camera doesn't really know the best exposure to produce a vivid final image. By using manual exposure, along with additional settings, one can capture the optimum amount of data to produce very nice final images. I'll trot out this time-worn SOOC image shot in RAW with manual exposure. Letting the camera decide on what's best would not render near the results I can achieve by manually controlling the exposure.

As for "getting the exposure close to perfect", one would have to very carefully define what is perfect. What is perfect may not appear to be that way at the outset. What is attached here is a close to perfect exposure for me.
--Bob

(Download)

dcampbell52 Loc: Clearwater Fl

First, I shoot RAW/NEF all of the time. I can ALWAYS export the final image to jpg. Having said that, I never (almost never) use Auto. I shoot alot of nature shots, especially birds in flight. Birds in flight are generally fairly fast moving against a bright sky or varying background of sunlit water, forest, etc. I tend to shoot ISO 100 at f/8 or higher for good depth of field, a fairly fast shutter speed. The widest aperture on that lens at 400mm is f/5.6 and minimum is f/40. So, I try to shoot (planning on f/40) at what ever ISO works out to at a shutter speed of 400 and f/40. This means that I may have some fairly high ISO. The other option is to back my lens up and only zoom to 200mm and that will allow me to use a lower ISO and a shutter speed of 200.
Keep in mind that AUTO anything isnt always the best choice. As a "photographer" you have to learn the exposure triangle and how it relates to any shot. Photography is ALWAYS a balance of the triangle and the reason that good cameras and good lenses are expensive is that they have better options (focal length, aperture, VR, precision of glass, etc.) than cheap cameras and cheap lenses. Yes, my Nikkor 80-400 lens isnt the best Nikon (or other brand) lens available, but it is the best I could afford in that range that had good glass and met my needs. I could have gone with a lesser lens, but I would have been giving up too many "points" in the triangle. This is why that if you do a search for any given size lens, you will see various manufacturers offering products. You may even see several manufacturers offering 2 or more lenses in the same focal range with wildly different prices. I had to balance my desire for a decent lens in that focal length that was decently prices. (this is why I bought a "highly rated" used lens. It isn't the best available but was the best that I could afford, so I've had to learn the advantages and disadvantages of the lens to guarantee decent shots. (NOTE: I have a red breasted woodpecker that has made a home near the top of one of the trees in my back yard. When shooting pictures of the woodpecker, I have to keep in mind that he is in heavy shade, near the 400mm in reach on the lens, and I'm going to have to shoot at f/5.6 or use an abismally slow shutter speed. AND, I don't think the bird is going to respond well to me asking it to hold steady for a few seconds while I expose the shot.)

NCMtnMan Loc: N. Fork New River, Ashe Co., NC

Full auto is a balancing act on the part of the camera's electronics. As a result it is trying to keep all functions happy which means it is compromising various aspects like ISO, exposure time, etc. to get you a good, but possibly average shot. While I shoot in full auto sometimes, I often am shooting in what I would call "semi-auto" based upon what I want to control in that particular shot. Just as we could control grain, detail and color depth in film days by using a lower speed film, the same thing can be done by controlling ISO, aperture, exposure time etc. with digital cameras. The sensor is able to record more data when controlling these. I mostly shoot nature, especially wildflowers, and I will often start out with a full auto shot, then start controlling differing aspects such as ISO, aperture, etc. so that I can pick what I like best when I go to post processing. Not only does it give me options at that point, I am also learning more about my equipment and how it performs in differing natural light situations.

mgoldfield

Not so!

I own a T6. I rarely use full Auto, but I just checked.
I set my camera to save as Raw and switched to "Auto."
I took a shot, and sure enough the info said the image was Raw.

clickety

👍👍 Finally someone got around to focus point selection. 👍👍 IMHO it's THE #1 reason for not using auto mode.

gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast

Auto or Manual, Canon or Nikon, DSLR or mirrorless, the debate goes round and round. It doesn't really matter on how you get there, the final photo is what counts. Experience with your gear, technique, and artistic vision are what really matter.

DanielB Loc: San Diego, Ca

Sounds like composition is not important to you. I shoot exclusively in RAW and one reason is that you do not have to have that perfect exposure to get that "really Great RAW file to work". If I'm shooting a portrait and want a nice soft bokeh background shooting full auto isn't going to cut it. Exposure isn't everything and in fact in some situations I don't want that perfect exposure. For instance; if your out on the boardwalk in the evening and you want to get the scene of strollers in the available ambient light with the tungsten bulbs and lights reflecting off the bay and you set your camera to full auto I can almost guarantee the camera will try and light it up and ruin the scene. I would never let the camera compose my shots for me. There is a reason to know the tripod of settings and how to use them.