I would just do it in LR. Use the brush to brush all the background, without including the eagle (hit the "O" key to highlight what you have brushed).
Try the various adjustments such as Clarity (set to negative); Sharpness (less sharp) Exposure (darken).

Then set a new brush and do (slightly though) just the opposite to the eagle. You can set the White Balance on the eagle to make it a little warmer and eliminate the blue.

In PS, you can select the eagle, then Invert the select and apply the same adjustments as in LR.

You can try setting the WB in the main panel, and that should correct the blue on the eagle, but will probably make the background too warm (just fix that in the select or brush depending on which software you use).

As a matter of fact, I often encounter folks who complain that their photos just don't look like they want them, but they won't try doing some simple adjustments.
I also encounter (and several have responded to this thread) folks who just don't think it is natural to process photos in some sort of software.

My hope was to simply enlighten both of those groups so that they would either try post processing, or not simply dismiss it.

As Linda pointed out in an earlier response, "defense" is probably too strong - maybe I should have titled it "In Support of Post Processing"

I am actually surprised that the vast majority of responders are positive on post processing.

Although a number of people have questioned calling the digital development "post" processing, I think it is the correct term.
When we shot film we had to "process" it - no choice. If you did not process it, you did not get to see any results.
With digital, you can see a result immediately. Once you upload it to your computer, you can see a bigger view of it, and make further judgements on it.
I consider what is done at that point as "post" processing, since it has already been "processed" by the camera, so further enhancements are "post".

Thanks to everyone who has responded to this thread. I was expecting some feedback, but I am surprised how many responses I have gotten!

Yes, but the original poster was arguing for no removable card, just what is built into the camera (ala I-Phones, and I think, later Androids (alas)).

I think the problem would be if you are out on a shoot and fill up your card. Do you just stop shooting and go upload to your pc? What client would tolerate that?
Even if you are shooting for yourself, on a photo safari for example, what photos are you missing during that time?

I challenge you: List 10 iconic photos that had absolutely NO processing adjustments made to them. I will be happy to see them, but I am not sure you can come up with 10.

Ah, but if the water from your spring is cloudy, do you drink it anyway or do you filter it?
I also did not say anything about using AI. Not even sure where you got that one.
The PHOTOGRAPHER will decide what exposure, crop, highlight, shadow, and sharpening to apply (and sharpening is not a correction for photographer error - it is a required adjustment due to the way a digital sensor captures the image).

My point is that we should do the same things to a digital image that we did to film images, and not shy away from them because it would prove that the photographer goofed.
Yes, if you set up the lights in a studio and arrange the subject with a perfect background, you would be remiss to produce a photo that required more than some sharpening.
But if you are shooting a landscape, or street photos, or are in any of an uncountable other situations, you have little control over the light. Some important parts of the photo will be too dark and there will be highlights that you need to bring down (the camera cannot do both at the same time). A small object will reflect light in a way that attracts your eye and detracts from the subject and overall composition, so you will need to darken it (dodging).

I have produced several photos that I rendered in black and white because of objectionable colors. In one (of a woman driving a team of horses in a pull) the woman is wearing a hi-viz green tee shirt. A man walking away behind her is wearing a hi-viz orange tee. I would have liked it in color (although it won a best of show in b&w), but when you look at it, you see a bright green spot and a bright orange spot and totally miss the story told by the photo.

I could not have reshot this after asking them to change their clothes - you are capturing a moment in time, and you cannot control all the variables - photographer: do not be ashamed because of this "shortcoming" - make your image work by some slight adjustments!

I also do not advocate working on every image you take. In a day of shooting at a wolf preserve, I take upwards of 1800 photos. I browse them as you would a contact sheet, and pick out the ones that have potential. Sometimes there are 3 to 5 and sometimes there are none. That "editing" is the most important step you can take after a shoot. Edit here means to eliminate all the blah photos and work on only the ones with potential.

Could it be this setting in Lightroom import? Allows you to apply a preset to each photo imported.

Actually, I miss it only a little. I would not have been able to afford shooting enough to reach the level I am at today.
I have gained so much skill over the last 17 years shooting digitally because I can afford to take so many more photos. I have learned more about photography in that time than I did in the previous 23 years!
The cost of an Adobe subscription compared to the money for equipment, chemicals, paper, film, time involved, etc. is not even worth thinking about!

I have heard that a famous photographer tried and tried to duplicate a shot he made of Half Dome, but could never get a decent sky.
When she talked to someone at the Ansel Adams Gallery, who knew Ansel, she was told that he didn't like the skies he got either, and
he layered the negative with a masked negative of a good sky!

This is my first "new topic", and it may come across as a little bit of a rant, but I hope it helps guide some newbies.

Post Processing is dismissed by some as not being pure; the detractors feel that only photos coming out perfect in camera are acceptable.
I disagree, and I base that on over 40 years of shooting (so, yes, I have shot film!).

When I got my first SLR in 1971, I started shooting as much as I could afford - it cost money to buy the roll of film and money to get it processed (no option except to post process when you shoot film).

I was usually disappointed because my pictures never looked as I remembered the scene. Mostly, at first, I shot color print film. Skies were blown out. People were weird colors, etc.
It took me a while to figure out that part of the problem was the way labs processed the photos. When I shot transparencies (the jpeg of the film world - because it was pretty much whatever you caught on that slide was what you were stuck with, ala jpeg), I found that the camera actually could produce good photos, but the issue of color prints still bugged me.
Shooting black and white, then sending it to the lab, was no better.

Over the years, I came to find out that the award winning images that we see everywhere are NOT always Straight Out Of Camera. When I made my own darkroom, I found that there were tools such as dodging and burning that were commonly applied in a darkroom to almost every good print. Test exposures in the darkroom were the norm - you didn't just set the timer for 10 seconds and expose the paper - you made a strip test to see how long you needed to expose for the best overall image, and you saw where parts were blown out or under exposed and dodged or burned those areas, maybe even applying a vignette.

Color was trickier since home processing was less forgiving than black & white, but I tried it, and had moderate success (color correction was tricky and I never spent enough time or money to get that perfect).

Ultimately, I found that certain labs (not my corner drug store) could produce excellent prints from my negatives and stuck with them from then on.

In the digital world, we apply the term "Photo Shopped" to many images (but it should be post processing, since we don't all use PS any more than all photocopier machines are Xerox copiers). It is often used in a derogatory manner, sometimes deservedly so. It is definitely possible to over process a photo and make it look unnatural. This can be done to advantage for some subjects, but if every photo you take looks "crunchy", you might be overdoing it.
It is better to keep it simple and just use the techniques that were most often used (and most easily understood) in the analog darkroom.

I contend that you MUST post process. Otherwise, you will get those blah photos that the film users among us have seen again and again.
As the photographer, you owe it to yourself and your audience to process those photos in the best lab (your own), and not just take what the camera produces.
It is rare that I have taken a photo and simply exported it as a jpeg without it first requiring exposure, shadow, highlight, white balance, and sharpening adjustments at a minimum.
There have been several, out of about 100,000 digital images I have, that were good without any adjustments, but that is extremely rare.

In the digital darkroom, we use the same techniques used in the analog darkroom - dodging, burning, adjusting for the best exposure, etc.
I am a huge advocate of LightRoom because it most closely matches the analog darkroom - terms are different, but the results and techniques are the same.
PhotoShop, with masks, becomes more complicated, but also has those simple tools embedded in it, so keep it simple and make great photos,
but don't dis' post processing - it will improve your photos immensely.

Not clear if you just want to subscribe to PS and use it or use a cloud based (meaning where everything you do is done in the cloud).

One common misunderstanding of PS CC is that you need internet to run it. No. You need it to register, download, and install it. Once you have it on your computer (laptop or desktop) you can run it mostly without an internet connection. I understand that you need to periodically (once a month or more) be connected so the PS CC app on your computer can check for updates, verify that your subscription is up to date, etc., but you do not need internet to edit photos.

If you are storing all your photos in the cloud (which is an option you do not need to exercise) you will, in that case, need the active connection.

I have been using PS CC for about 4 years now and have often used LightRoom or PS where I have no connection, with no issues.

Nice story! I see you are from Deer Lodge and just want to mention that my son and I spent a night there this past summer, at the KOA. Had a few beers at the Elk Ridge Brewery. Wish I could get back there! You have a nice town. Merry Christmas from Bethlehem, CT!

No problem at all. In fact, if the lighting is low and requires a flash, you may have difficulty focusing with the shutter button. Pre-focusing with the back button locks it in and when you take the shot, there will be no hunting as the camera attempts to focus and maybe gets it wrong.

Have used BBF for a couple years now and only go back to normal for street or other situations where hitting the separate button can slow me down.

I am not clear if you really need a printer or are just trying to convince yourself to buy one!
Anyway, I have a Pro-100 and a few years experience so I will try to guide you a little.

1. Do you really need to print? 450€ should buy a lot of prints. Cost per print to do it yourself is not substantially less than a print house will charge. I often wait for a sale at Nations Photo Labs here in the states, where I get a really great deal and it is not worth me using my (expensive) ink. When there is a sale, I will order a bunch of prints I need in various sizes and the order totals enough for free shipping. If I need prints on short notice, or just want to do a one off of some creation, I print at home.
As for print quality of the Canon, when I look at my inventory, I can't tell you which ones I printed and which I ordered online.

2. Don't even think about after market inks. I tried that and had very bad luck with poor colors. Since I changed back to Canon inks, I consistently get excellent prints.
Maybe it was the particular supplier, but I don't have the money to experiment again. In the USA, Canon often throws in some free "gift" if you order above a certain quantity. I laugh that the box containing 3 ink cartridges is the size of a microwave oven, and the shipping is free!
I had the thought of counting all the used ink cartridges in my box waiting to be taken to a recycler and calculating what I have spent on ink over the 3 years I have had the printer, but I am afraid to see the result!

3. The Canon has black, grey, and light grey inks, so printing in black and white doesn't use colors.
However, I think the only way to get guaranteed use of those inks for black and white is to use the plugin for Adobe that Canon supplies - Print Studio Pro. It allows you to set the color
profile to Black and White.

The issue I had with colors being off on non-Canon inks was often in the black and white prints. I just could not get them to print without a color cast. It is possible that printing direct from LR or PS you can't get it to truly use the b&w mode. Advice: ALWAYS print using Print Studio Pro. Much more control of the result, and you can use any size paper you want. If not using that program, Canon does not acknowledge that there are standard paper sizes, such as 11X14, so you have to do a lot of fiddling to print normal prints.

If you are not using PS or LR, I am not sure what to tell you - it appears that the only way you can access the program is via the plugin to Adobe. When I tried to use the other software that comes with the printer to print (bypassing the plugin) I did not get the same options and was unable to print on a note card (7X10) since it is not a "standard" size, and so I ended up going back to PS to print.

4. If you do decide to buy it, watch for sales first. I got mine for about half price, after rebate.

I use a Peak Design strap. It attaches to the tripod bolt hole (but with an Arca Swiss type plate, so you can still use a tripod) and to the camera body on the left side.
Instead of hanging on your neck, it is hanging on your left shoulder. This has worked out so well for me that I have not even looked at another strap now for 4 years since I bought it.
I have one on both of my cameras and it works well even with a long lens on the body. The strap can be removed in a heart beat.

Black Rapid and several others work the same way, except that they take up the tripod hole with no option to use a tripod, which turns me off on them.

The options such as Spider, Cotton Carrier, etc. are all good, but I hate to think of getting "suited up" camera wise to go for a hike. Much nicer to pull the camera out of the bag and go hike.