A few random thoughts:
Getting it right in-camera is always a good thing. No matter what post-processing preferences one has, a properly exposed and focused image will always improve the quality of the end result.
The amount and type of appropriate post-processing depends heavily on the end use for the image. For photojournalism, courtroom evidence, etc. only basic adjustments like white balance, levels, curves, noise reduction, and sharpening would be acceptable, but cloning things in or out of the image or any kind of compositing would not be. For portraits and such, cloning to remove blemishes or distracting background details is acceptable, even expected. For graphic arts work, the only limit is ones tools and imagination.
As to the digital vs. film debate, the comments quoted by Andres are disingenuous elitist snobbery, pure and simple. For that statement to be true, the photographer making the statement could not use Velvia or other films that increase color saturation, could never use color filters when printing to correct for any differences between the intrinsic color balance of the film and the ambient light at the time of the shot, and could never push/pull develobment to adjust image tonality. I'd be willing to bet a considerable amount of money that the gentleman in question violates at least one of these boundaries on a regular basis. "Narrow-minded foolishness" is a very good description indeed. I've gone the digital route because digital can always beat film when compared head-to-head in terms of color accuracy, image detail, and general quality of results. The only area where film is still viable is in large format, where there is not yet direct digital competition. But even those days are numbered, as technology improves and costs come down. Film is good, but digital is better, and the gap between them is widening. If you shoot film because you like to, that's great. People still ride horses and steam trains because they like to also. But unlike equestrian and steam rail fans, many film enthusiasts seem to be in denial about the advantages of digital over film, and claim that film has some kind of special essence that cannot be duplicated with digital. I have not found this to be the case. Any image characteristic intrinsic to film can be duplicated digitally with the right tools and expertise.
