Well, that makes sense. In general "more processed" means sharper detail and better contrast. That's exactly how it should be - the image through a high-quality, larger aperture reflector should appear "more processed" because to the eye it will have more detail and more contrast simply due to the larger aperture.
I would buy the "more detailed" inasmuch as increased aperture will resolve smaller features to the limit of the atmosphere.
But more contrast? Let me play Devil's Advocate here. The Newtonian throws twice as much light into the first diffraction ring compared to a refractor (14% vs. 7%). Since the image of a planet is a series of overlapping diffraction rings transferring more light (signal) from the Airy Disk to the diffraction rings (noise) and then spreading that over the image should produce more less contrast (compared to the refractor), not more contrast.
While I own both types, I consider myself a Reflector person so I have to remain hopeful. But I'm not seeing how more aperture alone can create more contrast than is already inherent in the object itself. Indeed, reading Suiter and Clark it appears that the "best" telescope is the one that removes the least amount of inherent contrast.
An interesting point Jeff. A refractor, even a smaller aperture than a large reflector with a 25% CO will deliver higher contrast though less angular resolution, while the reflector makes up for this by the sheer size of the image its able to produce hence present details and contrasts invisible to eye or CCD of the smaller scale image made by the refractor.