Just some thoughts on post-processing...
1) It would be incorrect to assume that a RAW image is "true to life" and that boosting saturation is always an embellishment. In my experience, RAW images are often quite flat/muted in colors and contrast. It often takes a little boost to bring it back to what I saw with my eyes.
2) Comparing before and after (RAW versus post-processed) is not equivalent to comparing "true-to-life" to post-processed. It serves only to show the degree of change from one to the other with no reference point for what is "true-to-life."
3) How something looks to the eye in real life varies significantly with the source, color and quality of the light illuminating it. Plumage on an overcast day will look quite different than the same plumage in direct sun or at golden hour, or at dusk.
4) Since we're not all gathered around the same calibrated monitor, we're probably all perceiving different levels of post-processing.
5) I consider these images Glenn posted as stunning works of art -- wildlife portraiture. What professional portrait photographer doesn't do some retouching/enhancing to make the image even more beautiful?
Thanks for sharing these images, Glenn. Maybe instead of saving for another lens, I should put the money toward a photography trip to an exotic location...
PS: Even our less exotic hummingbirds here in Utah can have absolutely brilliant iridescent plumage. Trying to capture that in a photograph and then convey the visual impact to the viewer just about demands a saturation boost, in my opinion.
