Even though i am happy to use PP on my digital images, i do not tend to step beyond the realms of the available dark room processes. I dislike overuse of photoshop, once you step beyond what was possible in a darkroom you have left photography behind and entered digital imaging and the end result will be an image not a photograph. This doesn't mean i hate OTT post-processing, as it can prove to be very effective making an otherwise bland image impressive. Photoshop also requires a lot of skill to use properly, in the same way as shooting slide film or developing negatives. What is annoying is how the great photographs that were shot on slide film didn't have or need any PP as they were taken correctly. Digital then comes along and allows people to just point and shoot with minimal photographic skill and then spruce it up afterwards on the computer.
I prefer shooting with transparency film which requires the photographer to get it right when taken. PP is simply not possible unless you scan it, which defeats the point. This is probably why so few people bother with slides. (apart from cost and storage) I find shooting with film far more rewarding compared to digital, as it is more of a challenge. The negative films have more latitude for exposure error which make them easier to work with, but no less rewarding as you have to work in the darkroom to save them. (in a similar way to using photoshop to "develop" a raw file)
I don't see photographic aids, such as tripods and light-meters to be a problem as it had been normal practice for over 40 years, suggesting otherwise is daft. You want unaided photography, make yourself a pin-hole camera and shoot directly onto sheets of 10x8" B+W paper. (You can even count the exposure in seconds and operate the shutter without electric/mechanical aid too)
(Btw, i do use photoshop and enjoy it too, and i do not give others stick about it unless it is poorly done.)