I've a feeling I'm going to regret this but I'll ask anyway.
So what happens when the shot you've meticulously planned in your head doesn't match what is produced by the camera. What do you do then?
Then you process it.
The title of this thread is misleading. It implies that MAKING an image = post processing, and therefore those that don't use any are not MAKING an image. This is of course untrue. Someone like Gregory Crewdson MAKES an image just by the sheer control over the environment. Someone else may spend 3 days building a studio set. Others spend hours setting up lighting. This is MAKING an image equally as much, if not more than extensive post processing.
It's about appropriateness. Where the amateur often gets it wrong is why they are doing it, and of course, the amount they use.
You MAKE an image by the amount of planning, thought and reasoning behind the processes you use... no matter what they are. Images are made to communicate something to the viewer. If you think about it, what's the point of it otherwise?
Sometimes I use no processing at all, and other times I use it extensively.
It's a tool. Use it appropriately.
What most amateurs get wrong is the idea that EVERYTHING must be processed... a lot... all the time. The thought of just pressing the shutter and doing nothing more because you've spent 4 hours setting up your lighting, or waiting three months for the right natural lighting on a landscape is anathema to most amateurs. The biggest mistake they make is thinking that the camera is merely the capturing device that records something they have no control over, and all the control happen while sitting on your arse at a computer. That's all too common, and obvious in too many photographs I see these days.
Processing is a tool, just as it's always been. Ansel Adams used lots of it. Diane Arbus used none. (shrug)... it's up to you. How good you are depends on you getting that right for your work, but more importantly that your images say something. People more experienced than you at reading photographs will tell you if you've got it right or not. The mistake is the arrogance of making massively over-processed images that have no quality as a result, no value, no hope of being sold, or used, and no one else likes, just because you refuse to listen to things you don't want to hear. Experienced photographers listen to what people more experienced than themselves say about their work, and take heed, no matter if it's what they want to hear or not; Amateurs spit their dummy out and take it as a personal insult.
The other reason it's often not appropriate is because these days, it's used far too often to cover up poor photography. It's far too easy these days to be a crap photographer and get succour from places like Flickr or Facebook. Deep down most people know this I think... but it's people saying nice things... so they'll take it.