I am getting sick to death of these incessant arguments about whether an image/photograph/reality is enhanced or changed and then invoking one or more of the masters to try to add weight to the argument.
Bottom line - we are artists. It is irrelevant whether the way we choose to interpret a scene is the way it was "in reality". Reality, after all, differs for each and every one of us. And the reality one moment is different from the reality of the next moment. If one "sees" the scene with dark clouds, an artist would paint them in whether they are there or not - why is is any different with photographers who have the tools to do so.
Who ever first commanded that photography is all about reproducing reality and that the artist (photographer) who changes reality has committed a sin, has done all of us a huge disservice. We now have all these automatons who at one end of the spectrum claim that anything changed from what the camera shot is "lying" to those who want to split hairs over "enhancing" versus "changing". It is irrelevant! What counts is the final work.
Another bottom line: if Shaun's original work had been done flawlessly so that none of us could tell that he had manipulated it, we wouldn't be having this discussion. We would have commended Shaun with the usual "well seen, Shaun" and thought nothing of how he arrived at the final photograph.
Stop being handcuffed by what others think photography should and should not be and create a photograph that represents not just what you saw (or your camera saw), but what you felt as well. That's what art is about. Art is not chaining yourself to what some machine has created, but liberating yourself to recreate your vision. Whether that means pushing sliders or burning and dodging with multigrade filters, the final image will speak for itself. It it's lousy with obvious flaws then people won't like it. If it's brilliantly executed and stirs emotion, people will like it. Does the end justify the means? Perhaps so. Must you be true to the original scene? Not all if, that's the path you choose.
Just to put what I'm saying into context - I lean much closer to the side of "straight" photography: I am working in the nature and outdoors field with the goal of "revealing the art in nature", so my approach to photography is to let the art inherent in nature speak for itself. But that does't mean my notion of photography must command what others do. Ansel Adams, Alfred Stieglitz, Edward Weston, John Sexton, Freeman Patterson and many more have had a significant influence on the kind of photographer I am, but I don't live and die by what I think they would do.
Be yourself - if that means other people don't like what you've done, so be it. Our goal as artists is embarrassingly selfish: first and foremost, please yourself, be yourself, be true to yourself.