blown highlights and color cast are generally thought to be undesirable (as in this pic).
but from a story telling point of view, i feel that, this is a decent pic.
my point is, things like color cast, limited dynamic range, converging verticals, tilted horizons, lens distortions etc are difficult or impossible to correct in the era of film.
with the coming of the digital era, all these flaws can be corrected relatively easily. if left undone, common critics will be in the form of "sloppy techniques" etc.
but when looking at pic in National Geographic, Time etc, we see pic with some or all of the mentioned flaws mentioned above all the time. and these are world class publications that pride themselves w showing the best pic.
in short, many photographers still treat digital like film. flaws can be corrected, but they choose to leave things as they are.
important is, the flaws dun discount the story tellin values of good pic at all (else, National Geographic would ve employed the best photo-technicians to PP all the pic).
so, are photographers placing too much emphasis on technical excellence, and ignoring real content? many times, we decided not to to press the shutter, cus of poor light or inherent flaws in the subject. but in the end, it is the recording of the moment as it is, that counts.