I agree with Jdef. You need to be carefull about how you define "fine art".
a photograph can be technically perfect but have all the soul of a passport photo. There are those photographers who use craft to make an image that really speaks to us, but I would argue that most photographs that really ressonate with me are not technically perfect.

Is a fine art photograph a beuatiful image that is used for decoration? Is it a work that is collected because of the possible appreciation in value. Is a work defined as fine art on the basis of the artist? Maybe it is the period in which it was made, or the fact that it was an image that while technically flawed, had great social impact?

I think you have to look at photography the same as painting. masterpieces from many different concepts and styles. I personally would rate many Robert Frank, Eugene Smith, Ralph Gibson and Walker Evans images equally with Adams and Weston.