Thanks for posting your image Ed.
I think it is worth mentioning that a RAW file is just data, it is not an original like in film as some would presume, and that to see anything like an image, an algorithm and processing needs to be applied whether it be in-camera or through a converter.
There is no real 'original' which is the 'visual proof of a scene'. It is just data which is then processed. Your file which is more subltle which you refer to as the RAW image, was processed by a converter and is displayed as an image through a particular converter. It has had standardised processing done to it, whether it be default settings or Auto settings. Whether you like those choices of algorithms to display the Raw data is up to you, and if you don't, you change settings and sliders in the RAW converter, or change things in Photoshop.
The amount of so called 'post-processing' depends upon what you do in the conversion stage and which Raw converter you use. For example, let's say your AUTO settings in your raw converter make the image really strong and contrasty, you may want to do very little in photoshop, and then you may say that little post processing has been done. The same image with a default setting in your converter may be processed very subtly, and you choose to make more dramatic in photoshop. You then may assume that you have done a lot of post processing to the image to get to the same result. Apart from the destruction of image quality which may occur from processing after RAW conversion, it is ALL processing.
The reason I am discussing this, is that I think that in this thread, rather than focusing on discussing how much processing an image has or not, I think it is better to really look at the image itself and the feeling it evokes.
I personally like the softer version, but would darken the underside of the clouds in the upper left corner.