Is Photography Art?

I have been away from home for 4 days and have not been able to keep up with Forum so when I got home this evening I was amazed to read all the responses. I hope everyone has enjoyed reading the responses as much as I have. Thank you all for sharing your opinions. When I started the thread I did intend to exclude the technical and record shots that we all take from time to time which by their very nature should not adjusted.

I guess that to a greater or lesser degree the answers so far indicate that photography is definitely art

My opinion is that not all the photography is art. I don't think snapshots are art, but when photographer's creative mind goes into what they are photographing (i.e. thinking about colours, composition, lights, movements....etc etc) , then it becomes an art form. This also goes to post processing. I used to be a painter (well... I guess I still am but I haven't pointed any for years!), so I'm constantly thinking about making my images as expression of what I saw or what I want to represent. But I do also take non-art photographs, e.g. passport photos, kids' birthday party shots. I really wouldn't consider these as art.

Thanks for your comments Gemm, I quite agree that record shots are just that - a record. What fun we could have if artistic licence was permissable when taking passport photos.

my mum is an amateur painter, her chosen medium is oils and  she sometimes makes a record of the scene with her camera from different angles and later at home adds or removes  to give the image she wants to see. as Photographers our medium is light, I visit and revisit to be there when the lights just right and set my position and usually crop in close to remove all unwanted junk and finally as a last resort i'll use image manipulator software. my mum produces an image on canvas, I produce one on an electrical gadget,possibly the same image, certainly the same dedication and commitment.Are we that different.