(Blansky was addressing Ken N, but how could anything bad ever happen due to jumping into someone else's argument on the inet?)
But what's the point in trying to draw a boundary in that set of craft- and medium-specific processes and say THIS side is all basically the same and THAT side is totally different (or "is not photography", "is inauthentic", "sucks", or similar sweeping generalities)? Is there something to be achieved through that argument, other than the usual chimera of "I won" bragging rights and the subsequent "No you didn't" meta-argument? It just seems to me like people are going to perpetrate images the way they want to, and call it whatever they call it, and so what?
Personally, I long ago gave up on purism and will cheerfully shoot any old thing and print it any old way. Interestingly, if I look around the stuff I've chosen to put up in my office, almost all of it was shot on film. (The really good stuff, as opposed to "cute picture of the kid that coulda been taken with anything", is mostly large format, but it's not because my contact prints are technically awesome---they're actually pretty awful---but because I compose better on a big ground glass, I think. So the "craft" processes end up affecting my "art" processes, in the terms I used above; which I think is quite compatible with anything being said in this discussion.)