And there are a number of purists and old-school film shooters who consider this sloppy form; in their minds, the shot must always be perfect the moment you capture it. It shouldn't need post-processing, and "fixing it in post" is a sign of failure as an artist. I respect this approach, but I don't agree that it's the One True Way of photography, nor is it one I'm in a hurry to adhere to. It's an approach that makes perfect sense if you're shooting film: It's too expensive to do a lot of bracketing with different settings, and unless you own a darkroom and are an expert chemist, there isn't much post-processing that can be done. So, a successful film shooter must, first and foremost, be an absolute master of technical precision. But a digital shooter? Not so much.
Totally agree. And I think people who insist that no post-processing should ever be used are simply lazy. :)
(I know I am; I really want my photos to be perfect right out of the camera. That said, when others do post-processing, I totally respect that, although I'll admit that finding out just how much postprocessing those stunning shots you see every now and then really have undergone has taken away some of the mystique.)