Notwithstanding the IR issues, need for ND filters and other glass needed to properly capture your image in the camera, I would like your thoughts on the use of other filters v. correction in post. Film DP's have their use of filters locked, but I've noticed that most digital people seem to shoot with the concept of fixing in post, not in camera. This may be the result of shoot and scoot, run and gun and other fast types of shooting where a matt box adds weight with a loss of maneuverability. But if you're shooting on sticks and take the time to properly set up your shot, then you probably have time to add a tungsten, coral, magenta or other filter that will adjust your image in camera. I'm from the school of trying to minimize "fix it in post," but when I bring this up to HD people, I'm looked at like I'm nuts.
What do you guys do? Carrying filters adds weight and just one more thing to lose on a shoot. And I find that some simply don't want to incur the cost of filters when they believe it's so simple to fix in post. But my post people always (as in "always") say it's most cost effective to bring them files that need the least correction.
Other than haze and ND's, what do you consider to be the necessary filters to properly represent yourself as a professional to your client and get the best image in camera?