Lovely image Sriharsha. Due to technology limitations these images are difficult to pull off. You have done a good job here in my view. Coming to your point about whether it is ok to post multiple exposure images, personally I think any image which did not add/delete pixels out of context to "create" an effect should be just fine (for example adding a moon from yesterday's night image to today's image is not fair in my view).
In a related note (hope you don't mind talking about a related topic in this thread), I have seen a tendency for defining "nature as is" being equal to "what comes out of camera" (without processing). In my view it just does not make sense. For me combining 2 or more exposures this way is more "natural" than single exposure image which would have badly under exposed the water or over exposed moon. Hope some day (a few hundred years from now ?!) sensors and camera system will become as good as human vision and we no longer need to fight with nature as is representation topic Be it sensors or slide/film never represented nature as is.
Do B&W films/slide represent nature as is ? Didn't we use Provia 100F, Velvia 50, Kodachrome 25, Kodachrome 64, Velvia 100.. for different look and feel ? more saturated, less saturated... than what we saw ? After all how each one of us see nature ? Can we then define what we mean by nature as is ? I only hope nature as is urge don't blind our creative visions.
Seeing goes beyond eyes.
BTW, I like the way you shared the story of moon and vanilla dollop ! Having seen/spoken to you a few times I agree you were a well behaved kid in your early days and of course a gentleman now! Thanks for sharing..