Thanks, I do love the impressionists, and tend to lean in that direction.

Thanks, hankster. It’s a toss-up really I suppose. I’m happy for people to relate to them either way.

For my own use though, I decided to call these photographs for a couple reasons. Now that all imagery has become digital, it becomes difficult to make clear distinctions, so I thought a reasonable line of demarcation would be whether it was produced mostly mechanically, or mostly by hand. A painting is mostly handwork, although the camera obscura or other mechanical aids have been used throughout the history (and even pre-history) of painting.
On the other hand, photography is mostly mechanical, even though its entire history is peppered with handwork like “dodging and burning” in the darkroom, “retouching” the final print, etc.

Since there is no handwork at all in any of these images (which is even less than in traditional photography) and since traditional photography has always employed filters of various types… (and since I also do some digital painting which is mostly or entirely handwork)… I tend to see these as proper traditional photographs.

sound solid reasoning. I wonder what that says about looking at a painting on a screen. how much of the real is just our digital impression of it?

@hankster Yes it all gets hard to untangle at some point. I love thinking about the interplay between reality and our experience of it.

No, iPhone photos run through multiple filters.