I think 'Fine Art' sometimes gets a bit mixed up with the term 'Fine Printing' which is used to mean archival printing; the two can be connected but needn't be. In fact I'm sure it's possible to produce fine art - certainly art - printed in almost any process/media.
Originally Posted by thefizz
I think it depends on the kind of photography you do and what it's prime purpose is, aswell as how it's produced (I've now confused myself about the last bit). I don't think photography such as documentary, travel or portraiture is always so easy to categorise as art, or 'fine art' , though they can certainly become so.
For myself my photographic interests are mainly portraits and still life & more recently landscapes. I don't personally call any of it fine art (though I've had commissions and sold a couple of prints after an exhibition & all were archivally printed). Come to think of it I don't call it art either though I have no objections at all to other people doing so . If I finally get some of my still lifes or landscapes onto a website I might offer 'fine art prints' because it sounds good. Or I might just leave it out.