I'm not a big fan of absolutes, so I guess I would fall in the middle of the spectrum spelled out up there. Quite a few years ago, Ansel Adams wrote a series of books about photography. One was called the Camera, the other was called the Negative and the third was called the Print. Even though those terms refer to the film world, I still think they would apply to the digital world. The Camera remains the Camera. The negative would be the image as taken on that camera. The Print would be what you do in post processing.
But anyway, I think the reason that he wrote the books that way is because the three things are elements in the process. Sure, you can aim for a good picture in the camera and in all honesty you should because there is only so much you can do in post processing with a bad image. In this case, I'm referring to an image that is badly out of focus, blurry or way under or over exposed. The chances of this happening with a modern camera are rare but it still happens. But if you take a mediocre or decent image in a camera, you can do stuff in post-processing. In fact, there is still a theory that some of Ansel Adams more famous pictures were modified in the dark room (The Moon at Half Dome comes to mind).
Like I said, you should strive to take a good picture from the get go but don't fret if you don't. There are ways around that.
So I cropped the picture to put the focus on the runner and the couple of Toledo players that were chasing him. I was about to cut out the Toledo players but I liked the look on 11's face. He looks almost tired and ready to stop the chase.
So what do you think? Which of the above pictures do you like the best? Please leave a comment.