You are asking about what is known as "authentication" of real evidence.
Photographic and digital image evidence is not presumptively inadmissible, but nor is it automatically admissible. Rather, this evidence is conditionally admissible. A threshold to admissibility of an image is its authentication. This depends on "(1) their accuracy in truly representing the facts; (2) their fairness and absence of any intention to mislead; and (3) their verification on oath by a person capable of doing so" (R. v. Andalib-Goortani, 2014 ONSC 4690, citing a long line of cases adopting this standard in Canada, but I understand this approach to be the norm across the common law).
This requires that the party seeking to have the evidence admitted provide some evidence that the image is a fair representation of the facts portrayed. This would normally be via testimonial evidence from a witness (often, but not necessarily, the photographer).
On direct examination, the party seeking to introduce the photo as an accurate representation would ask the witness about how the photo was captured, whether there was any special image processing applied during or after capture, etc.
The camera's automatic process can be a viable avenue for cross-examination of the witness. If relevant, this could include questions about color correction, zoom settings, chromatic aberration, features such as "Scene Optimizer," etc.
Either party might also call other witnesses to explain how any automatic features work, the extent to which they might modify a scene, and whether the user would have had any indication that it was operating. They might also explain how to interpret any associated metadata that might indicate that special processing was applied.
It is not necessary that complete accuracy be established. Even non-digital cameras merely produce projections of a scene that might be warped or otherwise altered by the lens. What will matter is the nature of any modifications and whether the image provided to the court is substantially accurate with respect to the material details. As one court has said:
complete accuracy of a photograph or video is not a prerequisite to admissibility. So long as, despite a change or alteration, the image is substantially accurate, is a fair representation of what it purports to show and is not misleading, the image may be admitted in the discretion of the judge, upon the application of a probative value/prejudicial effect analysis.
Even if admitted, the weight given to the information in the image is ultimately a question for the jury or judge (when sitting alone as fact-finder).