Just thinking a little more on this, the "craft" criterion may be part of what is underlying the move back to film, particularly MF, by trendy young photographers: a statement that "I choose to use film because it demands more skill," regardless of whether it is better or even different to what might be achievable with digital.
Shades of JFK:
"We choose to use film in this decade and to do the developing, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept"
On the face of it, this could appear to ring true, but for one thing: film was not difficult. It was just another thing to learn, and a pretty simple task at that; hell, I learned how to do it!
I'd venture to suggest that, from my personal point of view, it is far more difficult (and boring) to have to pick up Photoshop techniques. I find that I learn - and remember - as much as I really, really need to know for everyday processing, and whenever I have a special need, then I look it up or ask for help here, and somebody (my Jim Dandy often lives in Chicago) comes to my rescue.
However, those rare events/needs, or rather their solutions/ways to handle them are almost instantly forgotten and, should they arise again, I have to hunt back through pages of e-mails to rediscover what to do. In other words, I find contemporary photography to be anything but intuitive, and its ways highly unwilling to stay within my useable memory bands.
With film photography as with its route to paper, there was little to learn; what you did require was the ability to grasp its intuitive nature and ride with your feelings: from knowing when/what not to shoot, right down to making a print, you had to decide early on what was worth bothering yourself with and spending your money on, too.
Perhaps those last few required choices were what made the difference: you edited on the spot
in your head, and not in the camera or on the contact sheets; the contact sheets let you decide which good shot was the right one for the task. That's why pro shooters' contact sheets led uninformed observers to think they were all the same shot: no, they were not - they were versions of the same one, build-ups, choices that were made after the concept had been understood.
I have little idea of how the amateur film shooter worked pre-digital. My amateur days were spent trying to get into the pro side of it rather than much else; in fact, I shot very little other than a few young women, an experience that made me realise that it was going to be all about rapport. I wasted time messing about changing developers and films, not realising that you had to standardise to learn anything about either the film or the processing of it. Seems so obvious now, but it wasn't then. Only when I did break into it and get a photography job did I discover that the reality was that everything was made as standard as possible, which is partly why all of those guys in the photo-unit taught me so much: get good with one or two things; that covers pretty much all you'll ever need. Then, work at it - which as a job was not a choice to avoid if one wanted to stay employed!
I guess it comes down to familiarity with the process; film was simple where digital is endlessly complex, and expensive in unforseen ways.
Rob