Or do not want to manipulate the image.
Some of us simply want to record reality unchanged; you should be equally free to create whatever

(a) I do have gimp {free}, and I am proficient in using it, despite all the complaints about it.

(b) I am capable of learning any software.
In my working years I wrote software, authored tutorials, and taught "Computer Literacy" to basic students

Today's literacy lesson: using square brackets here is unwise because it may confuse the software displaying your post, and will definitely interfere with any attempt to quote your words

Years ago, one of the recommendations I gave students was to get a 100 ft. roll of surplus film, a loader, and cassettes, and shoot it. The way to good photography included having to take a lot of mediocre images, and slowly begin to learn what a good image looks like.

Proof sheets and critiques eventually result in visual literacy. Watching a lot of tv and shooting pre-determined shots with wide angle lens cell phones does not lead to visual literacy. What has happened is that digital technology has simply allowed for a great deal more mediocre and poor images.

Good photography is certainly still there, good photographers must go through the same general process with digital tech, but the learning is exactly the same. The development of and strong photographic eye is at the core of good photography. There have always been "tricks," and post-production adjustments. Those do not account for good images. Bing able to critique one's work, and doing plenty of hard work does produce results. There is always room at the top of the pile. But it is true that digital technology has allowed for a much wider pile with a lot more "meh" images. An hour on Instagram or any other image-based social site will show that.

All that is to say I think the real issue is not about technology or post-production adjustments, it is about the lack of visual literacy.