If it takes me back to the emotion of the original moment, then the editing is good.
To me, this is the key point.
Cameras are not human eyes, and the storage media is not the human brain.
Cameras record light reflected from objects, capturing brightness and colour. Focus point, depth of field, viewpoint and lens choice influence how we 'read' the resulting image, but that depends on us having an emotional response.
With our Eyeball, Mark 1, we can see detail in the deepest shadows and the brightest highlights of a scene in one glance, and we're drawn to what interests us.
35 years ago, when just starting out in my new career as a professional photographer, I was on a bus and overheard a group of woman going gaga over a photo - a paper print, not on a 'device', remember those days? - of a new baby. "Oh, he's got his father's eyes" etc. Curiosity got the better of me and I managed to sneak a peek.
What I saw has stuck with me since. The photo was completely out of focus, completely over-exposed and showed, I think, part of a human face. It was kind of hard to tell without resorting to LSD!
However, to the audience, it had quite some impact. This experience immediately made me rather a cynical photographer, and not too precious about my craft.
Regarding 'post production', it's been part of photography since the earliest days. Ansel Adams developed his famed Ten Zone System to take advantage of matching exposure with film processing and printing manipulation. In the darkroom I quickly became skilled at dodging, burning and later, changing contrast in a B&W print using multigrade paper.
When Photoshop came on the scene, as photojournalists we were horrified! Suddenly images could be altered in ways that couldn't be detected, and the whole validity of what we did was in question. National Geographic, the pinnacle of our craft, moved pyramids and altered portraits to suit their cover layout, and we were aghast.
Fortunately the industry rebelled, and standards of what was acceptable were drawn up. My publication's code of ethics states :
Journalists must not tamper with photographs or videos to distort and/or misrepresent the image – except for purely cosmetic reasons – without informing the reader what has occurred and why.
This statement can be challenged as too open: what exactly does
– except for purely cosmetic reasons – mean? But the key element is about distortion and/or misrepresentation.
This means I have very little knowledge of how to actually manipulate images using Photoshop, and a low threshold for 'tweaked' images.
I dislike 'over cooked' images and one of my pets hates is the photo showing the golden tones of sunrise/sunset when the sun is actually high in the sky.
So, when I look at the OP's photo offering, I ask myself if I have a negative response on a technical level to the post-production.
In this case I don't. It's not so obvious as to detract me from the content. It's not trying to distort the situation.
On an emotional-response level, to me it works. It looks hard, cold and wet: I know that feeling and I feel like I'm there so to me that works.
I guess for me it comes down to intent.
Is the post-production done in an attempt to distort/manipulate, to add drama to a dull photo, or to channel the viewer's response?
In this case, to me, it's the latter.
Good discussion.