I'm new to photography, but I enjoy editing photos in lightroom and giving each picture a unique look. Sometimes I give photos a vintage look, or a matt finish, or an HDR look, or black and white, or whatever I think fits that particular image. However, I see a lot of professional photographers give a client a set of photos that all look processed the same way. Each one is a bright and clear image that looks very natural. Obviously they tend to be great photos, and there might be a few black and white ones in there, but they all tend to be processed so that the set looks the same. Is it that portrait photographers just strive to get that perfect, crisp, natural looking image? Do they consider photos that look over processed to be too amateurish? Or are there some respected portrait photographers who deliver drastically different types of images of the same subject? I guess what I'm asking is whether or not I'm wasting my time learning to edit photos so that they look "cool" rather than natural? Will I eventually grow out of the processed look and just look to get natural looking photos? And what do laymen prefer? If you're just some average person who wants pictures of their child or their dog, what do they tend to want? Do most just want natural looking photos or do most like a variety? Or is it split 50/50? I see a lot of photographers knock pictures because they look "over-processed" ... but I also see a lot of non-photographers who seem to love those same types of pictures. What are your thoughts on this and what tends the be the general consensus of the photography community?