If you want to shoot to JPEG, and not post process, you aren't really going to need a camera that was designed to capture far more data than the target format is capable of representing. And yet, people pay for really expensive cameras with the kind of dynamic range that is only useful for post-processing. It is like paying for a sports car with a big engine -- and then have someone else drive it no faster than 20mph while you sit in the passenger seat. It is a waste of money. And camera companies are taking advantage of consumers who think they need these expensive cameras to get the kinds of shots they want.

They don't.

Of course I understand that it is more complicated than that. How the camera looks and handles is a huge part of the equation. (I am, after all, the kind of moron who has a Leica in their collection of cameras -- which is a nice camera, but it isn't technically as good as my Nikons :-)). But I still feel that the industry is taking advantage of consumers by selling them capabilities they aren't ever going to use.

Some camera manufacturers do something that is somewhat sensible: they make their film emulation profiles available in post-processing. So you can shoot raw, take advantage of the leeway this provides to get the exposure and tonality right, and then apply the film simulations in post.

As for post-processing, I think the biggest problem is that people think it requires a lot of work and that it is complicated. It is easy to get that impression when you see all of the _atrocious_ editing videos on youtube of people over-editing pictures.

If you do have to spend a lot of time post-processing, the problem is usually that you have no idea how to capture a photo in the first place -- or you have no idea what you want. It pays off to learn how to shoot. And if people aren't interested in learning: mobile phone cameras will usually make more satisfying images with a lot less work. They are _far_ more capable of instant gratification than expensive compact cameras from just 10 years ago.

And I say that as someone who spends a lot of time learning. Even after 30 years. Either you want to up your game, or you don't. If you don't, then there is very little a film preset can do for you.

As for color blindness: you will be no more capable of creating a decent color photo by having the camera slap some color grading on your picture than if you actually edit it in lightroom. Though you can probably learn how to correct images that have obvious color defects without actually being able to see them in post. You can't do that in the camera.

That being said, I do most of my (very rapid) post processing in black and white. The first thing I do is to turn off the colors to adjust exposure, contrast, tonality etc. Once that is in place I turn the colors back on and do any color grading/corrections I want. This is where you'd apply film simulations etc. And as I said in the paragraph above: if you are color blind, it makes no difference if you let the camera do it or some film preset.

I spend perhaps 10-30 seconds per image in post. (Usually I spend more time on the first picture in a series and then apply those edits to all photos of the same scene or with the same settings and lighting with minor variations).

The the big advantage of doing this in post is that you have an entire universe of film simulations to choose from. You are not limited to what comes with your camera. The difference is that you will have a lot more wiggle room to get the exposure and tonality right.

A lot of photographers (myself included) don't actually shoot so the image looks like what I want to end up with, but with specific processing in mind. Usually because you know what the camera sensor is capable of doing, so you optimize for capture of usable raw data so you can get the result you want in post. And with practice, post processing shouldn't be time consuming.