If you see yourself as a photo journalist you are likely to do only minimal PP. If you see yourself as an artist you are going to be far less restrained as you create your art. Apart from this distinction, if you wish your digital image to represent what you actually saw, post processing is going to be essential. Whether you are allowing you camera's program to automatically adjust a JPG or whether you are making the adjustments manually after shooting RAW.

Even the most advanced of today's digital cameras doesn't come close to the capability of the human eye coupled with that most incredible 'computer,' the human brain. If you want your image to look like what your eye captured and your brain recorded when you took the photograph, PP is going to be necessary...whether you allow your camera's JPG program to automate it or whether you do it manually. The excellent example photographs illustrate this point well. Image one was what the camera saw. Image two probably has close to the shadow detail that the photographer actually saw. Image three probably has more shadow detail than could have been seen of the rapidly moving person with the ball.

Someday we may have a camera that that is 'smart' enough to duplicate the the ability of the human eye and brain, but I doubt it will be anytime soon. In the meantime, what is your goal or mission is likely to lead to your choice of how you shoot and whether or not you use PP.

This forum showcases a wide range of goals, philosophies, talent, and methodologies. No one combination is right or wrong and the differences create the texture that keeps this forum interesting.

I think the argument starts with image 1 and ends with image 3. Image one does not have anything blown out. Even the clouds retain some details. This is pretty much a perfect exposure, in the sense that all the components were captured in order to create a good looking shot. This is an example of why post processing is a necessary skill. The jpg would either be blown out in important areas, or dark, as this one is. There is no way this scene could be "properly" captured with no intent on post processing.

Image 3 fully exploits what was captured, and clearly without a ton of work or time spent on the image. It clearly shows what Kymarto "saw" when he took it, or more appropriately what he wanted us to see.

The comparison is not all that different in concept from this:

http://www.kevinshick.com/blog/2013/4/revisiting-hernandez-nm

There are those who, for whatever reason, will view the camera as a means of recording reality. And there is certainly a number of disciplines where this is important - photojournalism, reportage, forensics, etc. For this group nothing but SOOC will do. But there are others who view the camera as a creative tool, and view a raw file as an opportunity to express their creativity.

One is not necessarily "better" than the other. But I much prefer the creative approach to the "documentarian" approach. There is more "luck" involved in capturing a moment using SOOC, and there are far more limitations, particularly with regards to subjects of high contrast etc, than there are when you approach photography as a creative medium. Just sayin'