I managed pretty well with the hundreds of thousands of transparencies I shot over the years (professionally, for publication in magazines worldwide)
I don't decry post processing work or people that do it, but a lot of it is to cover up shoddy camera work rather than enhance the image.
----------
I shoot RAW, and in the same way as I worked with film, the RAW file goes off to the client, where they can fiddle with it to the hearts content. The stuff I shoot will never need to have the white balance or exposure altered in post, that's all taken care of by me, at the moment of exposure.
I'm not trying to cause an argument here, I'm just explaining that for some of us, shooting transparency film meant there was no second go at it on the computer, we had to 'get it right in camera' or we didn't eat, and some of us have carried that across into our digital workflow, where we try to produce a file where the only post processing needed is to correct the inadequacies of the capture procedure.
I have no problem with people who choose to spend hours in photoshop, but there does seem to be a trend these days to look down on old school methods of getting it as good as possible at the moment of capture.