Great images in every respect but one - and I know that this is a matter of personal taste: I really do not like that "brighter than ambient daylight" lighting of the subjects. It seems to be the current vogue and I think that it spoils what are otherwise great shots.
I disagree with the ruin part(1), but it do looks odd and interesting. You mention vogue: Maybe we are going back to the glory days of lab modifications?
If that happen, and the precise reproduction of reality + creative perspective(2) go to an end as the tell all of digital photos, that could be great for the more creative professionals. The work will have obvious(3) qualities that the good enough set will not be able to reproduce by buying a better more "intelligent" cameras.
When I was a boy I used to go to the library and ask for photography books. A lot of the images where heavy post-processed
in the wet LAB. The images were thus separated from reality, but vital and beautiful.
Painting moved from the representation of reality to more abstract forms in a path that resembles a roller-coaster. Similar processes apply to the history of music (instrument focus) and sculpture.
Digital photography is not different. I am more of a realist so to speak. I use as little post processing as I am able to get away with. Not being a professional helps. No need to deal with external pressure. Even so I have this soft bone for more abstract work, maybe from my younger days.
---------
1. I know is a valid, respectful opinion. This is just my take on it.
2. by perspective I don't mean the technical terms, more the intuitive word that includes angles and lighting etc.
3. Some times you need a good one to recognize a good one. And that's a billing problem.
