The fact is that the photos are going to end of being printed at the cheapest mini lab on glossy paper. All photographs require manipulation whether it's cropping, exposure or burning in. Friends of mine took the shoot and burn option and I sat back and listened to all the comments when the photographs were handed around the bar.
The photographer in question had MPA Photographer of the year for "region". I doubt that if the MPA saw those photographs when they were judging, she wouldn't have been awarded the honour. She traded on a reputation that didn't reflect all of her services. My opinion is that those friends wasted £500 on shoot and burn in an attempt to save some money.
We do not do a "shoot and burn", as you call it. We do a basic "printing" of everything, just no Photoshop, no layers, etc. I do all my work in Canon Digital Photo Professional, and they do theirs in Bridge. These programs let you relatively quickly, yet totally manually, do the basic things that you do in a wet darkroom (density, contrast, color balance, cropping) without having to open stuff in PS. If it is not 90% editable in one of these programs, it is no good to begin with, IMO. When someone wants hundreds of pix delivered on a CD as part of the contract, and no prints, that is their decision, not mine.
"Truth and love are my law and worship. Form and conscience are my manifestation and guide. Nature and peace are my shelter and companions. Order is my attitude. Beauty and perfection are my attack."