To that you could add the fact that circumstances are rarely going to be ideal, and post processing allows us to bring the final image much closer to what it would have been under ideal circumstances.

To sum up your point and my point, circumstances can be very unobliging (and often are) but PP enables us to mitigate the shortcomings of what those unobliging circumstances provide us with.

There are those who hold the opinion that raw editing is a crutch used by the incompetent - unfortunately they seem to be wilfully ignoring the fact that PP can be used to mitigate the shortcomings of what circumstance typically provides us.

Put another way, PP can be used to optimise, not just to correct the fruits of incompetence. There's nothing virtuous in not employing a powerful tool for optimisation.

PS - You make a good point about using the proprietary raw converters to give us a jpg equivalent that has all the editability of raw files and also all the advantages of jpg. The simple fact is that SOOC jpgs are usually quite good and there's no denying that they can save time and effort. A version that can be extensively tweaked when required sounds like a good idea to me.

Ansel Adams is famous for spending hours in the darkroom dodging and burning and a using a variety of darkroom techniques to “improve” his photos over what they would have looked like right out of the camera. He knew that physics placed strict limits on what could be recorded by film from light focused by a lens.

His film was not capable of recording the full dynamic range of every scene and his lenses had aberrations, edge distortion and other imperfections.

Darkroom techniques are the analog equivalent of photo editing software capabilities in the digital age.

So for those of you relying on the “get it right in the camera” argument one of the great masters AA it seems would disagree.

Also, what about “in camera - post processing” hybrid techniques like exposure bracketing and in macro photography focus stacking? The results of these techniques simply cannot (in most instances) be achieved with a simple single photograph.

Face it, manipulation of photographs is an integral part of photography and has been since the beginning.

However it is your choice to use or not to use digital manipulation.

My approach is to get the best image I can when taking the shot. Then accepting that physics dictates post processing to get the shot exactly like I want it to be in my many attempts to get a great shot.

I have a strong dislike for the idea that by taking many shots of a single scene “at least one will be good”. That is relying on luck not skill and minimizes the importance of composition.

I fell into that trap when I went digital and now - with a few exceptions - I shoot in all manual mode because it forces me to think about what I see in the view finder and how it will look as a finished image? Have I done all I can to get the best image my equipment can record that can be tweaked in post?

But that is me and I am not saying my way is the right way. It is the right way for me.

I am a professional photograher! That does not necessarily make me a better artist or technician than anyone else around here. It's just that I have to make a living from my photography and I do/did that, for over 50 years" by satisfying my clients with my work. If I don't continuously satisfy my customers, BASICALLY, I don't eat, pay my bills and support my family- SERIOUS STUFF!

My point is, most of the time, my customers couldn't give a rat's tail as to what kinda camera I use, how and if I post-process my images, use film or digital if I use Topaz textures or make my texture screens out of a discarded piece of sandpaper and litho film- AS LONG AS THEY GET WHAT THEY PAY ME FOR!

My point is when I view a photograph that I am impressed with, as a photographer, I am interested in how it was produced but that does not influence my impression of the image. At the end of the day or at the end of the process, it's the final image that counts. The image will either stand up or fall down. All the rest is technobabble and "malarkey*"!

*A kind old word that has lately regained popularity- I like it, it is more benign than BS and less political than hyperbole!

The best "software" is in your heart and your brain- your eyeballs are your best lens. Once you learn to use your built-in attributes, just buy the hardware and electronics you can afford and good results will emerge.

At New Years' time, my grandmother, an elderly Jewish/Polish lady, never said "Happy" New Year- she was more realistic about happiness and would instead say (phonetically- a git-your) a GOOD year! I like that! 202O was a BAD year- we need a GOOD 2021- I'll settle for that!