Regarding the first part, it is true that they do both produce an image which can be experienced. But the road traveled to get to that image could not be more different in equipment, materials and skill sets required.
For many today the term "photography" refers only to the image produced. How it was produced is irrelevant. But for some - including, I suspect, a fair number of people on APUG - the definition of that term is more broad and also includes the rest of the various traditional analog processes.
Considering it here for a moment, it seems to me that once the image light has passed through a taking lens, I can't really see any more intersection points in the two methodologies. The mechanisms and final physical outputs are nothing like each other - except that they both eventually depict a viewable image.
For some, that's not an important distinction. For others, it is the single most important - and a defining - distinction.
Photography is a big tent. Big enough to hold lots of different people holding differing opinions on just what a photograph is. Nothing wrong with that, just as long as no one tries to force their opinions on anyone else.