Some interesting replies and attitudes so far.......
Personally, I don't, and have never, thought that photography either can or should be bound by the same criteria as graphic art,....while a work of art can utilise 'artists licence', a different set of 'rules' exists for photography due to the unwritten parameters that society places upon it........
Unfortunately, once a photograph crosses the line into looking 'fake' it's integrity is lost for me.....and, it woul dhave been better for the photographer to have set aside his camera and reached for brushes and canvas.
As members of western societies we are bombarded from morning to night with highly skilled image making, and, without any concious thought we are all expert at interpreting images. In recent times the verb 'to photoshop' has passed into common English usage just as a previous generation finally accepted the verb 'to airbrush'. Sadly these phrases are not usually employed positively, especially by non-photographers.
Fortunately, it is not inscribed on any tablet of stone that photography has to be realistic,..but it IS an unwritten rule that it must at least tempt the viewer to believe,...and Pilbara Storm does not do so, for me anyway.....
I'm quite sure that the over dramatic treatment will enable large sales if the right gallery space can be aquired and prints might well sell for large sums,........and, in a few months or years, for much lesser sums in a street market near to you. The people who will love this are not going to see the incongruity of the piece, or question the non-reality of sky with landscape, it's only the drama that speaks momentarily....and that came from photoshop.