[The following reply isn't only for Geoff but for others to ponder as well]
I could respond in two ways here:
I could try and prove that I
don't do as much post-processing as you assume I do, and post straightouttathecam as well as "less edited" shots--
OR...
In all honesty, my goal isn't to create realistic pictures that everyone will enjoy. I take pictures for my own enjoyment[unless its specifically for a client]. If someone else happens to like it, great! If not, great!
For me, photography isn't about seeing the world as it is and trying to create an exact replica of "natural"[If I wanted that, I wouldn't edit my photos]--It's about making what the world is, appear as it should be in my own eyes.
Personally I'd be pleased to see a heavily post-processed photo that already looks good naturally over a photo that has no editing at all and looks good naturally.
You may question why in the world...? Because a photographer who took a photo that looked great naturally and made it 10x better with PP just took it one step further to amazing--Meaning not only that they have talent with the camera but also talent with their imagination to make it look even better.
Does this mean I object to natural looking straightouttathecam pictures? No--not at all. I like natural pictures that look great. But
my own artist preference is beautifully post-processed photo's over natural ones[Even if its just a hint of contrast that made the difference].
Though, I don't like photo's that look ridiculous
because of the post-processing[Even still, that's an opinion].
Am I intentionally being harsh/defensive? Not a bit[though I am defending my own opinion]--However I am trying to reveal my point of view for clarity on the subject.
-------------------
Now then--It would only be fair of me to ask you to show some of your photo's WITH post-processing assuming you do none whatsoever
They look too real and not unrealistic enough
[jokes]