Well if we run the absurd argument of "Photography is made with the light!" to its ultimate absurd limit that some photographers use to claim their work is 'more special' than other photographer's work, then all darkroom prints fail that.
They're clearly Chemotography... The drawing was done with chemical processes between the light and the end result.
If you're not projecting the original light to be viewed, then you're obviously a dirty cheater and a fake, and everyone should buy my work instead of yours...
I feel the need to release myself for a few minutes in this post:
I don't see why it has to be original light, and if we bring chemistry into the discussion then yes, we can call it Photochemography, as the light is first used to selectively activate the medium for the chemical processes afterwards. A digital image can also become a Photochemograph if it is exposed on Chromogenic or B&W Silver-Gelatin paper with a digital laser-exposure printer and developed with chemistry (C-type print). Then it becomes much closer to true photography. Also, these printers can produce very high-resolution photographs if the original digital image is high-resolution.
If you print with an inkjet ink on "photographic" inkjet paper, then what you obtain is an inkjetograph, of some sort. An inkjetograph from an original digital image, which was a phototelegram or photogram rather than photograph..
Gene Nocon puts it very nicely at the end of this interview, even though he praises digital for its technical possibilities:
If you're talking about using the original light in photography, there are direct positive methods for both color and B&W. Think of Polaroid for example, which produces positives instead of negatives using direct light. While these may not be technically the best, some of these B&W methods produce hauntingly interesting and detailed images on large format, indeed probably because they're produced by the original light. In these processes the medium was in fact touched by the subject being photographed, though indirectly. The photographed subjects are basically stamping/imprinting themselves on the medium. I like to think of analog photography as taking finger-prints of reality; you have more than information in this process, you've got a physical object/imprint. This object potentially carries a degree of quantum entanglement - more on this later, but that's only my speculation.
A digital image is like a scan of that fingerprint, you only have information, but no object. The original object in a digital camera is the sensor with electrical charges selectively distributed on it by the optical image, but then this object disappears when the charges are taken off the sensor during reading and sent to the SD card, then telegrammed to the computer, then the drive, then the short term memory of the printer, etc., etc.
When we talk about other analog printing processes like engravings, etchings, woodcuts, etc. we care about more than just information (x-y coordinates on paper and shade), we also care about the process used to make the final print and the final physical print. Albrecht Durer's paper engravings are worth tens of thousands, because the paper has been touched very intimately by his copper plate, which physically transferred the ink that his shop applied by hand to the plate, etc, etc. An ultra-high resolution scan of his engraving is not worth much, as its just information. We understand and appreciate these things for such processes but not for photography for some reason. Probably because photography has been hijacked by ink-jetters.
I remember when "photographic" inkjet paper was coming out in the 90s, and I could not understand how they could call it photographic, as its not light-sensitive, it was so obvious. It just felt like false advertisement at first, but over the years became forcefully instilled in our minds. I am saying this while not selling any images at all. I also find it kind of difficult to appreciate how one can sell an inkjet print while calling it a photograph. Kind of like selling sand at the beach, there's nothing special about it.
I can also get very deep into the potential quantum entanglement between the object + film and between the operator + film + the final print. Though this involves the concepts of quantum-based nature of human consciousness proposed by Sir Roger Penrose, and the possibility that we gain insight into the world around us via a non-information-based consciousness. Film-based photography can allow this, while digital is only information. But I personally don't need any of these explanations, because digital is just not interesting (because of the abovementioned I think). It may be a lot more superior in its efficiency but there's just something onanistic about it. The final apparent outcome is the same or even "better", but you're missing the point of it all and feel a bit deprived. I know what it is being in the digital world myself with digital SLRs.
Additionally, what is the best "look" obtained in digital imaging? Probably the "film look", with artificial grain and the film S-curve. I think Fuji makes a camera with these presets. There's something unauthentic about this. While the best digital look, just looks digital.... Along with the very digital looking ink droplets on "photographic" inkjet paper. When taking digital snapshots and printing on inkjet you are always aware that anybody can buy one of billions of high-res stock images online for under $1, give it the "film look" or some other look and send it out to Walmart print-center for ink-jetting, or one of thousands master ink-jetters in the city. Its like selling sand at the beach, very demoralizing for me. For others maybe not, as somebody was able to sell a very digital NFT for 60 million. But I would not count on this, as exception is not the rule.
In saying this I am not against digital as it is a different medium altogether, a digital media. I think digital can become very interesting if used in a hybrid process with C-type prints (chromogenic or silver-gelatin) where light-sensitive mediums are involved. Also digital technology can be used to make awesome color-carbon prints, which are true pigment prints, much more easily than with analog methods. These processes make extensive use of light to call them photographic, and enough labor to sufficiently entangle the artist/operator with their print.
