I've always believed photography is actually two distinctly different art forms. The first, image capture, may or may not be fine. It all depends upon the viewer, very subjective. On the show circuit I see much imagery that I consider fine, and much that I consider rather boring, or un-inspired.
But that's just my personal biases.
The second part of photographic art form I believe is the print.
Here we have the opportunity to do many things to the original image that was captured. We can have a commercial print made, and the public might like it, and consider it fine. Or we can make it ourselves, and the public might consider it boring, and un-inspired. I'm not sure a precise definition of fine is possible. I do however see many ribbons being awarded to photographs by judges that are merely following their own biases, and that I wouldn't give second notice to. Who can say?