Cheater! LOL. j.k.
Eh, I'm a purist - I get it in-camera or it wasn't got. I just use photoshop as a capture tool for my negative scanner, really, with occasional cropping, but no other adjustments. Then again that means with my current setup I'm far more limited by the abilities of the emulsion, so I definitely need to start compensating with better lenses.
I'm a purist only out of laziness - I like taking photos, not correcting them. By the time I get to the computer and finish rating and tagging my photos the last thing I want to do is spend time in Photoshop.
That said, while I share your view of Photoshop as cheating, it could also be argued that the same thing was possible (and done, often) traditionally by getting film weighted for higher saturation and/or contrast - such as Velvia - although, of course, true purists would also call that cheating (I don't think it's cheating, but I think it can be a cheap crutch).
Dude, I think Ansel effing Adams cheated. I'm an in-camera girl, that's all. Many of the things done in photoshop are doable in the lab with really remedial techniques. I just disagree with the idea that the art is in the print, not the negative.
I don't particularly like the term cheating, but can't think of a better one. I also am not keen on "purist" but eh... *shrug*