I consider "I'll fix it in post" to be the maxim of the lazy or inept photographer.
I consider photographers who stubbornly hold to a single belief and modus operandi to be the most inept of all for not embracing different ways to achieve the same (or better) results.
A photographer able to understand, appreciate and make a split-second decision of which method would be most efficient and/or yield the results they want when tackling any given 'issue' for a photo is the most adept among photographers, while one that relies purely on (trying to) get it right in camera or editing of the resulting photo is the least adept.
Sometimes you simply cannot change composition to get a better photo than one in that exact moment, whether in a controlled environment or not - compositional changes to deal with background elements, such as intersecting lines with your subject's head, say. Changing your composition may change your lighting of the model in a manner that cannot be worked with for the result you intend on getting - perhaps the lighting is fixed and thus cannot be moved, or there's no room to move your lighting equipment in, or something in the scene bounces light (or stops bouncing light) in a manner that no longer works for the shot should you move your lighting (or modifiers). And someone would go through all of this unnecessary, potentially pointless effort just to deal with a single light stand in the background they could edit out in a minute or two? Or a line, such as one on a wall in an old building that leads to a light switch? Or a crack in the wall? Or trim on the wall? Or a line in the wood of a cupboard or some other woodwork? Or of a glass-pane door?
I mean, let's take into consideration, since this is a thread about how much to charge for something, that you need to utilize more or more-expensive equipment, or assistants, or take more time, at the shoot. This costs you time and potentially money, right?
And if you have to sit for minutes to hours or even days editing your photos, that's time you can't get back that obviously also costs you money, right?
Similarly, if you subcontract the editing to someone else, that will still take time and obviously cost you money again.
If you're unable to take into consideration the various options to you and decide which will yield the most efficient use of your time and money as the photographer (and thus the best transferred costs to clients), you are not necessarily any measure of a professional nor necessarily an adept photographer.
If you rely on stubbornly trying to get every single detail right in your camera by wasting everyone's time and potentially getting an inferior shot from a creative perspective as opposed to a technical one, you're failing in your capacity as a photographer.
If you rely stubbornly on just snapping away with expensive equipment and having someone else touch up your photos until a usable result is crapped out of Saturn's rings, you're failing in your capacity as both a photographer and a businessman.
Balance.
Balance doesn't come into the 'get it right in camera' argument I've heard from every single person out there to ever use it, and most distressingly, I've primarily heard it used by 'photographers' that are, in my opinion, actually somewhere between ****ty or amateurish in their final output - if I had to guess, I'd say they use it as a kind of compensatory mechanism for their own inability to learn to utilize other tools and methods available to them.
