All finished photos.. then (film) and now need processing of some sort. The ideal negative (or data from sensor) from which to process a print is one that is flat, uniform, and properly exposed. In other words, even distribution of values from light to dark. This gives the processor (darkroom or lightroom) the maximum flexibility to produce a final print (or processed image for digital). On the other hand, out of camera or direct from negative most of these images are rather boring. Even in the film days, you almost always had a contrast filter in the enlarger for printing. It is no different today with lightroom, photoshop, or whatever you use.
If you don't shoot RAW, the camera is applying its own "processing" internally prior to saving the resulting JPG image on media. Often erring on the side of overly sharpened and overly saturated images.... which tends to please the general viewing public. All printers/photo finishing centers (film and digital) also apply a generic color, saturation, contrast adjustment as well. The ones I like the most are the ones that develop a relationship with the photographer to determine their preferences rather than a template.
You shouldn't shy away from "adjusting" or processing your photos no more than one should be proud of images out-of-camera unprocessed. Post-processing (chemical or digitally) are just as part of the final image as the time spent behind the camera. I once spent 16 hours straight in a darkroom to finish my finals... just to get things perfectly right. More time than it took to expose the frames.
PS> Behind most famous photographers exists a processor who works their magic on their images/negatives. They are the unsung talent that rarely gets any recognition. Rarely have I seen a photographer who enjoys or has taken the effort to perfect their skills as a processor or printer. Of course, digital has changed that....
