I confess I've found this dscussion fascinating, as it's evoked a strong feeling of deja vu. I recall reading similar debates on the line between "real" and "fake" photographs as far back as the mid sixties, and I'm sure the topic had been thoroughly debated many decades earlier than that. In fact not long ago some were still debating whether a photography could be a work of art. As recently as the fifties there were those who still insisted that photography was a science and could never be an art.
The mere fact that digital techniques have become dominant tools really matters little (IMHO). In the early seventies I spent the better part of a summer producing high contrast b&w prints using a photostat camera to create 11x14 paper negatives that I then re-copied to positive prints. At each of the four stages of the process I used a variety of dodge and burn techniques, a variety of techniques to alter the chemical reactions, and even immersion in ferrocyanide bleach to alter the images. I can't recall a single occession when I was accused of producing prints that were somehow invalid.
My point is the introduction of digital techniques shouldn't make any image any more or less "real". I would propose that the issue should never be expressed in terms of validity. Rather we should recognize that differences in style are just that, nothing more. After all, is a Van Gogh painting any more or less a painting than one by an Old Master? We should never hesitate to classify a photograph by style, but we should never consider any one style any more "photgraphic" than another.