I should add that the degree to which you’ve ‘developed’ an image should only be constrained by the overall aesthetics and your own personal expression, and while those two constraints might give considerable room for expression, there are still boundaries. It’s tough when you’re the only person that thinks the end result is aesthetically pleasing, but that shouldn’t stop you from creating the image that pleases you. It’s also perfectly OK to change your mind about these things.
I see some composite images that look amazing but when I see the amount of PP work that’s gone into them (far more than just adjusting colour, tone, light, shadow etc; you move into complex editing processes), I realise I just don’t have the skill to do that. I tell myself that creating a composite image isn’t true to photography; after all isn’t that what painting is all about? But then I realise that actually there’s no reason why it can’t be as valid a form of expression as anything else. If the end result is aesthetically pleasing then surely that’s all that matters?
On the subject of enhancing colour beyond what you actually saw, I’d reference the impressionist painting movement. They sought to convey the scenes they saw not by faithfully representing the scene but by faithfully representing the feeling it gave; the impression of the scene is conveyed to the observer in other ways. There’s nothing wrong with photography doing the same thing.