I think that if your camera is capable of recording RAW images its a pity to use it only for JPG's. In most of the cases your edited JPG is better than camera's. Of course you can add your own creativity to the final JPG, how much and how obvious is this for the viewer depends on you and that particular image. With some images is clear that they don't look natural after too much editing... but even this is subjective. On the other side, editorial images may have other requirements, they have to describe the scene exactly as it was at the moment of recording and not altered in any way... but I don't think that's the case here.
I always shoot in RAW and then edit my photos before posting them. IMO any image is improved with a bit of editing. I enjoy the editing almost as much as taking the photographs. I use Capture One Pro 10 which is cheap to buy if you have a Sony camera.
I think this issue is mainly down to what format you've shot in, RAW or JPG. I personally always try to get as much as possible in camera, then just tweak it in LR. I only use PS for composition stuff, and frequency separation , blemish removal etc.
When all said and done, Digital Photography allows us to do this, so why not use it?
I thought about this question for a while after seeing it. Not only because I have been getting better at editing but also because I value the truth. Most of the time I very much want my photos to be accurate depictions of what I shot. The problem is that the camera "sees" differently than do we. Because of that it has always been a bit of a struggle to get the photos I take to match the reality of what I see. So, in general, my photos are retouched a bit if only to bring the photo closer to what I saw - or thought I saw - in a subject.
That said, there's nothing wrong with having a bit of fun while editing and trying out different styles is always informative. And the frozen bubble shots are just fun to play around with while editing.