Personally I don't give a hang weather it's a painting or a photograph that's been cleverly smeared around. If it looks good I can appreciate it.
What I DON'T like is people not saying up front what it is and allowing others to believe a manipulated photo is a painting. That's just being dishonest and in a way robbing people who do paintings and robbing one's self of the chance to be known for being a very artistic photographer.
I am almost never fooled by a photo manipulation. There is a certain signature to the light and color shifts that few painters duplicate. Those who do have the skill often move into different uses of color that are subtly exaggerated or expressive in some way.
On the other hand the photographer captures pure light. Some would think "ah they just push a button" but that only happens when the photographer has framed the shot, accounted for lighting, exposure, film speed, focal depth, and a load of other factors. Often times having hiked into unbelievable locations and then had the patience to wait for the subject to happen just right.
I can say without reservation that if it were not for photographers my own art would not be what it is. I owe a huge debt of gratitude to photographers for their art.
For any photographers out there who feel shame about "paintizing" their photos, please don't feel that way. Embrace the art and be clear about the new expression you bring to it. You will find yourself revered rather than reviled within the freshness of your honest approach.
"Don't mistake 'reality' as the important thing"~DM
Studio Machine: Intel Core i7-2600k CPU @ 3.40GHz
16.0 GB RAM
64-bit Windows 7
Wacom Cintiq 24HD
Home Machine: Intel PC
Core 2 Duo CPU 6420 @2.13 GHz
2.00 GB RAM
64-bit Windows 7
Wacom Intuos 2