And as an artist who does paint by hand, using oils on canvas, using old-fashioned brushes, and finding it more and more difficult, and painful, due to Rheumatoid Arthritis, it really annoys me when when digital imaging technicians describe themselves as 'artists', who 'paint'.
No, the D.I.T. manipulates keys and a 'mouse' or tablet stylus to command computer software to create the required result, and any imperfections or errors can be corrected, again by the computer software - there's no having to start again, possibly physically re-painting, by hand, and certainly little in the way of visualisation, followed by sketches, position and perspective planning, selection of colours and tints which will create the desired illusion without the viewer realising that said colours or tints may be the opposite of what should be there. And there's very little, if indeed any, struggle to physically obtain the desired dimensions of the subject(s), whilst maintaining proportion, depth and perspective without dislocating a wrist, elbow or the neck !
I'll agree that some original CGI 'artwork' is extremely good, and the knowledge and practice required to operate the 'system' efficiently and competently is a skill to be admired, as are the finished results.
But to create a finished image by photo-montage, where the majority of the scene, if not all of the scene, is a composite of actual photographic images, whether originated by silver-halide or digital media, is not 'painting', it's photographic reproduction, with the basic techniques pre-dating digital imaging by almost a century, when camera technicians would produce such work by laborious overlay, undercut, dodging and burning, spacing and hand re-touching if required.
Fine for personal use, or non-commercial gain - but to pass this off as 'original' and 'hand-painted', especially with the illegal use of other people's work, for personal gain, is more than unethical, it's downright banditry.