Thank you for the kind words :-)
I agree that the term fine art is overused, but then limited editions are also over used. Currently I only offer my portfolios in limited editions. On request, and for certain images, I will date the print. That seems more genuine to me than placing a number out of a huge edition, such as 25/2000, which is eventually meaningless since there are so many prints, even though each of them has a unique number. Ansel Adams did not number his prints either, unless I am mistaken.
For me a fine art photograph is one that is done with the goal of creating a work of art. It is an image that is done with a high level of craftmanship and care. It has to be mounted and matted to museum standards, in an archival manner.
Above all the cost should take a second seat to the concern for quality. Fine art is about quality, not about quantity. It is not about trying to save money by buying lower-priced inks, paper, matboard and other supplies. It is about creating the finest piece you can create, regardless of cost.
The goal is an artistic rendering of a subject in the finest manner possible.
Regardless of price and cost, a fine art print should sing. It should have a lyrical quality. It should transport you to a different place. It should open a window on another world, the world the artist is inviting the audience into.
it should demonstrate an above-average printing skills. Ideally, it should demonstrate outstanding printing skills.
A full definition of fine art photography is challenging. it's a little like defining what is a luxury home, or a luxury car. Some brands and features come to mind, but how do you rate a new brand, a new product?
In photography we all know that specific photographer's work can be safely considered fine art: Ansel Adams, Edward Weston, Joel Meyerowitz, all produced fine art work. But how about a new photographer whose work hasn't been "stamped" with the fine art label by his or her peers? More difficult to say. I hope the above list, however partial, does help.