Well, first off, the "straight from your camera" idea is not valid, and was not valid in the film world either. In film, shots had to be developed in the "wet darkroom" and then printed. "Straight from the camera" was, well, undeveloped film!
With digital, you start with Raw data, and to convert it to an image, it has to be either processed in your camera using your in-camera settings, or you have to bring it into the "digital darkroom", a Raw processor that you use to develop your digital "film".
So, what's your question, or maybe rather your hypothesis?
Now, it's true that with film there are some "creative choices" to make before taking the shot that with digital are either made before the shot (especially needed when shooting jpegs) or that can be made in the digital darkroom if shooting Raw.
For example, choice of film is important for film shooters that "care". Film is a factor in several image "features": Contrast, Saturation, sharpness and White Balance as well as the ASA/ISO are all part of film choice. Also, filters can be used to affect the color of a shot. Sure, all that goes into play before the shot. But then, all that would only "come together" in the wet darkroom, where someone had the skill to develop that film and bring out the best of the shot!
But does that make film "better" than digital? Not as far as I'm concerned, although I admit that in my "film days" I wasn't "into it" -- I used generic film and just looked to "get a shot". Sometimes I came out with nice results, ones that I'd send out for "enlarged" prints, but there were tons that just ended up either in a shoe box or the trash. And, I never stepped foot an a wet darkroom! Now, digital gave me a "new beginning"...and, I spend good time in the "digital darkroom"!