Straight Out of the Camera.. Or Processed... ?

Original:

Processed:

I must confess, when I found the source image for this in my library, I thought. "Huh. I took that?"   I really liked the clarity of the original at the top.. My usual modus operandi is that if I like the original image, I'll like the processed, HDR-y one better.   So the result of that is here.  We loose some clarity by bringing those colors and highlights in.   Loose some sharpness by de-noising to account for the above..

It takes me about 30 minutes to do an image like this.  Sometimes a lot more..  Rarely a lot less.  Know your audience..  Time well spent?

   

Which do you gravitate to?  (Assuming you don't absolutely despise both of them!) hehe

Aside from this example -- do you find yourself to be more of a photography purist, straight-out-the-camera person or a "get it in post" person?   Obviously, I like post processed images.   It reflects my world view, in that see things.. differently than most.     Look, you won't hurt my feelings and I'm certainly not trying to start a HDR vs nonHDR debate.  Internet debates are stupid. :)  

There is no right or wrong in matters of what you like.  I'm just curious about you -- your taste, your typical modus operandi..