I use a bridge camera. Presently I am re- learning and honing things used in the past with the aim of constantly improving my knowledge and skills. When I shoot, I am shooting with the goal in mind that someday I may not need to use pp to get the results I am aiming for, but in the mean time, post processing teaches me things that I might like to change or adjust the next time when I am shooting and my results also give me enjoyment in the now.
Gone are the days when we may have to toss most of our work, and have nothing to show of our hobby because something isn't just right. My choice to use the bridge cam was based on physical needs, but it still offers many options that enable me to have creative manual choices, and I enjoy my hobby and aiming for improvement while doing it. If we all would look back at our first picture we took, to where we are today, we would be surprised. which ever way you choose to use or not use p.p. really is okay. Have fun which ever way you choose.

In the digital age, it is even more important to consider your RAW file a "digital negative" which requires post processing.

First, essentially all digital SLR cameras do not see the world in focus, no matter the quality of the lens. Why? Digital is not analogue, and every "focused" item is built from a matrix of color receptors, rather than a single RGB point. This way of rendering an image cannot achieve the pristine focus of analog. It is a dither. Thus, at the very least, the soft world of digital must be post processed into focus, if you want digital to look more like analog. Further, the CCD and CMOS approach creates edge artifacts often seen on high contrast diagonals which are mostly, but not all, "corrected" by in-camera processing.

Then there is color shift. Digital uses precise color temperature settings, but the world is not precise. While you might fastidiously do white balances or try to use the right "scene setting" there will always be images which slip through with questionable or bad color. Post Processing, again.

Further, the Digital Darkroom offers tools never dreamed of in the chemical labs of the past. The needs of commercial work depends on this new creativity.

Finally, the digital world offers archival nature beyond the analog nature of silver gelatin prints which made Ansel Adams famous. In fact, not every Ansel Adams print which was sold was perfectly made. Insufficient washing has cropped up in the yellowing and fading of certain collector's prints, say, of the famous "Moonrise Hernandez." You HAVE to wash away ALL of the hypo, folks.

How can visualizing the final image and shooting accordingly be even remotely equated with lack of talent? :shock:

The experienced photographer will always visualize the finished product before making the exposure. Thus, if the scene will require extensive post processing, the photographer is prepared. That, of course, is what you did in your example.

I always teach my students that the best images begin in the mind of the photographer.

Is that so?

When I went to the photo exhibit at the San Diego County Fair last year and talked to the exhibiters, not a single photographer did "little or no processing."

It's my own personal opinion after talking to professional photographers here in the San Diego area over the past four years that every single one of them, bar none, use post-processing to make their photos the best they can be. I say that because of the forty or so that I have talked to, not a single one said that s/he didn't use post-processing.

Post-processing 50 years ago meant having your own darkroom and filters, different chemicals, different papers, dodging, burning, etc. Today, post-processing is much better, less expensive, less time consuming, involves less exposure to weird chemicals, and is oh so much more fun. I use Adobe Photoshop CS6, Adobe Lightroom 4.3, Corel Photo-Paint X6, Corel PaintShop Pro X6, Corel Draw X2, and even Word 2010, all depending on what I want to do and how fast I want to do it.

I understand that National Geographic photographers are not permitted to enhance their photos other than a minimal crop. Is this true?

If you have to ask, you have no idea!

Photographers must sumbit the Raw file to NG, no edits are allowed. NG does have a team of "photo editors" that adjust images for publication, that includes cropping, color adjustments, sharpening for print and a few other minor tweeks. But these adjustments are done by the magazine staff not the photographer.

Annie, this a good place to mention how a photographer's intent plays into the PP vs. no PP debate. NG photographers are engaged in photography as photojournalism. I would expect them to be shooting to produce the most natural and accurate image that they can. But (luckily) not all photography is meant to be photojournalism. Many shoot with the intention that the final image will be a personal interpretation of what they experienced, both sensorily and emotionally, or they shoot with the goal of creating an image that originates only in imagination. Different end goal, different approach needed.

I understand that National Geographic photographers are not permitted to enhance their photos other than a minimal crop. Is this true?