When you say 'natural', it doesn't really mean anything. Do you take 'natural' to be an overexposed shot that the camera has done, perhaps at a 5° angle, or one which has been adjusted in RAW processing to become a scene that is as close as possible to what you saw with the naked eye?
RAW processing is no different to working in a 'digital darkroom', it's only when deliberate over-saturation/colour/contrast come in that it could be deemed 'photoshopped' IMO.
I always try to get the photo to look exactly as my eye saw it at the time, to convey the 'natural beauty' - sometimes this needs work with software however, so is this 'natural' in your eyes? Something to think about anyway