...
"If a photo is very good I think it will stand out no matter the editing (unless it is obviously too dark, overexposed or sth)"
Of course it can be improved (and should be improved imo) with a careful editing (as in your picture).
But honestly I didn't need the editing in the first place to understand that it was a good picture
If I got this right, basically you are saying a good photo should jump off the contact sheet and hit you in the eye.
No amount of editing is going to save a poorly conceived image. It might make it a little more pleasing to look at, though. And some creative editing might even successfully turn the source material into a whole new image not originally realized.
But at what point does the performance* itself become editing? Or does it ever? Or does it always? Or does editing start with act of seeing?
I will do all the 'editing' needed to create the image I want, be it zero or a ton.
* The classic "the negative is the score..." thing.