Well, I was responding to your argument that photos are not art because art requires skill and effort. It sounds like you are conceding my point that some photographs take more skill and effort than some drawings that you would consider art—so based on that it seems we are on the same page that your "skill and effort" criterion, by itself, doesn't seem to be able to tell us what is and isn't art.

At this point it sounds like you are simply asserting, without providing an argument, that your position is correct. But I am unclear on what exactly your claim is: is it that (1) no photography is art or that (2) the photographs that you yourself take, as a rule, tend not to be art?