Wow, this thread took off. NONE of them are HDR, at least not by methods I've seen HDR's being made. The first one consists of the same RAW file being separately adjusted, one for the sky exposure, the other for the foreground exposure, then masked together in Photoshop. Same with 2,3,4 too. I usually like to edit the sky separate from the landscape to bring out the color and contrast with the clouds and not have the same effect applied to the landscape. The sky is almost always brighter than the foreground anyways, so I usually try to set my exposure to compensate for both without loosing details in my highlights or shadows, then using ACR to adjust the exposure for each and combine the two in PS.
I did the colors the way I did in 2, because it was a rather boring looking sunrise otherwise. I tend to like vivid colors as in that shot, as IMO the reality of most shots like that are rather boring or flat and the bright colors make it much more appealing to the eye, yet without over saturating it. Once again, just my opinion.
#4 had quite a bit of PP to it, as it was a very dull and gray day and I used a few curve adjustment layers to bring out the contrast in and add more detail to the shot. The sky was washed out in the original image and very flat, yet there's no highlight clipping in the image, even after PP.
P.S. I don't use any filters on any of my lenses, not even the UV filter. I did have a focus issue with my 5D that I got corrected by Canon that may have affected some of the shots.
#5 has no highlight blowouts in it either, even though some seem to think so. It was a long timed exposure, I think around 3-4 seconds and the only clipping of the highlights is at the very top where there's a blown out cloud. The PP of this one was very simple, I simply added contrast with the curves adjustment and then burnt the sky back in. I did not in any way add saturation or do anything to the colors. They came out in adding contrast to the image. The white balance was correct out of camera, so a little contrast was all it needed. The water is naturally that color due to natural lime deposits in it. The highlights in the water are bright, but not blown, and are really soft because of the timed exposure. I tend to like processing my images on the brighter end while watching out for blowouts in highlights and shadows if they're important.
#6 is just a stitched photo from 3 shots and no HDR in it. I just did an exposure adjustment and curves adjustment and left it as is beyond that.
I hope this answered the questions people had and if not, please ask and I will update my response. I didn't expect so many mixed opinions and replies in the short amount of time, but I do thank you all for your feedback and hope I've explained my technique and approach in a way that sheds light on why I edited them that way. I use to not believe in PP photos, but then realized in most cases, the reality of a photo is usually dull straight out of the camera and with a few modifications to it, you can make it look even better or perhaps all together different and resemble the way you see it as an artist. The feedback I get on my "modified" photos is far better than any feedback I got on the flat and dull photos straight from the camera I use to take and post a few years back.
Thanks again for the feedback and I'll gladly reply to any other questions and appreciate any additional comments, good or bad. 
