I guess I have a problem with "pretending". The works you are creating are photographs pretending to be paintings. They neither celebrate the unique qualities of the medium of photography, nor do they exhibit the unique qualities of a painting. Anyone with one iota of knowledge about painting will see them for what they are - fakes. It's like you are trying to dupe the ignorant into thinking they are something more than what you are making them look to be.
Granted, you can do whatever you want for whatever reasons; my opinion is irrelevant. However, it is sometimes helpful to discover how one might be perceived. Forewarned is forearmed.
In principle, I agree with the photographs and paintings having their unique qualities, and there are true masterpieces in both categories that don't need any artificial enhancements.
However, there are also some exquisite paintings that rival the fine details of photographs (i.e. Robert Bateman's nature pictures), and I have seen also nicely rendered digital paintings that looked to me more appealing than some "real" paintings with out of proportion elements, poor compositions, and even color disharmony.
It's not black and white world, conforming always to the rules of thirds. In the end, it really depends on qualities a particular artwork, and of course, personal preferences.