I almost never would have the opportunity to "push" in developing as I return from a week long trip with a bag of many rolls of film shot in varying light conditions. I could mark individual rolls except a roll of 35mm may have images shot inside a dark building followed by images shot in outside hard full sun. So I must process everything the same. My only option is to understand what the film can do and adjust exposure accordingly. Fortunately, I only shoot one film for many years so know what it can do. (as people of the pre-internet era did)
"fix in post"? Well, sorta. Except "fix" implies that you are correcting something you did wrong. I just consider what I do as accommodating what the film is capable of. Just as we once did back in the wet darkroom.
I wonder if too many today become too entangled in digital metrics and pay too little attention to what they want the photo to express. Frequently that is best done with no shadow detail (telling the viewer that it is dark). Instead some become obsessed with a perfect histogram in lieu of a good print.
Long long ago, I photographed much at night due to work schedules. I tweaked exposure, developers, development times, and paper grades. I almost got to where I could make a photo shot at midnight look like it was shot in the daytime. Then I realized that if that was what I want my photos to look like, it would be much simpler to just wait 8 hours. And I went back to making low light photos look like they were shot in low light.
Relating back to the original thread, I was asking people to consider if high iso was really necessary or just a convoluted attempt to make a low light photo look like it was shot in normal lighting. Alternatively, they consider not becoming a slave to the digital metrics of published iso's and light meters but simply understanding the relationships of their exposure and the end result.
