I don't disagree, I spend a lot of effort thinking about things at exposure-time. I think the thing that sold me on scene-referred is that I started conciously thinking about the kind of data I was capturing. It's often the case that the display medium, or its artistic representation, has a much lower dynamic range than the sensor in the camera, and so there are a number of things you can do to get the most data possible when capturing to leave yourself room for expression at presentation time.
What this gives you isn't necessarily the ability to "fix" things in post, but the ability to decide how you want your image presented in a certain medium or format when "developing". Even master photogs like Ansel would take liberties when developing to realize their vision from the negatives they were able to capture.
For me, I have intuitions of the relationship between my printer and my screen from experience.
And I run test prints and reprint if I don’t like the way it prints.
I mean since you mentioned Adams, for Adams the print was what mattered…the print is the title of the last of his three books series.
Kodak doesn’t change HC-110 every six months because doing so destroys value.
But again it’s his software. I just wish he weren’t so bored as to invent problems to cleverly solve and solutions for which he may argue.
What this gives you isn't necessarily the ability to "fix" things in post, but the ability to decide how you want your image presented in a certain medium or format when "developing". Even master photogs like Ansel would take liberties when developing to realize their vision from the negatives they were able to capture.