A few decades ago I criticized a friend who was making painterly photographs by analog means.
These are mimicking painting and are therefore not Pure Photography!
And of course Pure Photography was, well, uh, you know, the right thing to do and everything else was caving in to, uh, The Establishment, or to something that was, umh, Unworthy, Disdainful, and Uncool.
He pointed out to me that the abstracted, tightly cropped, but otherwise photographic images I was making at the time mimicked abstract painting to an equally bourgeois degree, and he was right.
You don't have to run filters to mimic other media, it sometimes sneaks up on you. Then we decided Ralph Gibson was pseudo-cool but badly compromised by unconsciously aping David Hamilton (who was manifestly not REALLY a photographer) and should be ignored. Judgments in these categories require a very fine comb. Have kept my mouth shut until now.
If it sells, do it. Your imagery is only good in proportion to the number of people who are affected by it. Affecting people with your imagery puts food on the table and keeps the heat on during the winter. Or it may get you arrested. Attempting to apply any other evaluative criteria to imagery can only fill up LuLa's hard drives for no good reason. But do what you have to do. That was good enough for my immigrant fore bearers, and it's good enough for me.
Besides, that location has been shot so many times it should be illegal to take any further photos without shredding an equivalent older image and putting it into the compost heap. It's way over quota for pure photography, but I think there is still some room left for painterizing.
I'll be done printing in about another hour and will be out of everybody's hair.