Saurabh, we can only expect opinions here! There can't be the 'truth'! That said, if this were on a patch of grass or a nature's backdrop for me it would have been a pure natural history image. Now that there is a strong human presence here with red backdrop for me it tilts more towards 'fine art' (whatever that means) than a natural history. Why? Why not? It is my opinion!

We can come to a consensus on what 'natural history' means. Not for 'fine art'!

A fine image! Thanks for sharing.

Gullivers Travels - That's what came to my mind.
As for the question- I would put it down to the intent of the artist. A single picture of a cobweb in isolation - would be natural history on the other hand if a "cobweb" is a part of an "art of clutter" series where the artist is having a conversation with the viewers in a series of pictures it would be fine art. So in natural history, it would be the record of a moment ( which can still be done very artistically and pleasing way ) and the "authority" of the picture lies with the subject ( so for example if it is pet or shot in the zoo it is a problem ) .....in fine art ( again whatever that means ) the authority of the picture lies with the artist so one can use poetic license to create the picture the conversation is more important . Just my take open to other thoughts

If the presentation of an artist’s intent and content of his creation is beyond the normal sight of the viewers leading towards an artist’s core ideation of his own vision and insight, it would, to me, make it ‘Fine Art’ though it is not ‘black and white’ or ‘blur’ as you doubt about which is absolutely right. The artist is the nucleus to imbibe the viewers’ feelings to let them flow with his own feelings. The artist makes the viewers dream as he dreams, the artist makes the viewers think as he thinks and the artist makes the viewers perceive the way he perceives…… more than that, but not less than that…!

If this image is taken to the school of entomology, pathology or any school of agriculture, it is natural history, but if the same one is presented to inculcate some lyrical or aesthetic or philosophical ideation or abstraction through a series of images to create a new way of ‘seeing’ then definitely it is ‘Fine Art’, I visualize so……, Saurabhbhai….

A fine image... 'Corporate Success Story' is a quite appropriate title to go with....and Aha......Rajkumar's 'Gulliver's Travels.......

Thanks and regards…

Raj has hit the nail on the head. I too believe art is about the artist and his/her vision ( further elaborated by Ghanshyam) whereas natural history is about the object. Art by nature if subjective, natural history objective, of course with variations here and there. In the end what Ganesh said is true that we can not have consensus about what is "fine art". But Ganesh with some uncertainty isn't it possible to locate art?
The shot in question posted by Saurabh to me appears natural history in spite of the back ground for the very fact that he has let the moment be, without any willful attempt at portraying his intent which is other than what is visible.
Having said that A fine image Saurabh! Your question really stole the thunder

Probably nothing more to say. Nirlep added, n simplified finally what others said. Apart from post-processing, I think, sometimes 'Title' may also push the image to other side!
In my view, this one is more about natural history / documentary kind.
Tfs.

Nirlep, the ‘unnatural red” and black rhythmic patterns etched on the reds makes me forget for a moment the natural history here!

interesting that you should say that.
How about if the artist was making a statement on a particular egalitarian ideology with the strong red background and the cracks in the red... of course, the situation itself. Now, this becomes a "fine art" picture .....so basically it depends on where he hangs the print .....( meaning, along with what else ....)
The communication will come in even better when the red is a deliberate and conscious decision and choice with the "statement" in mind

apologies Saurabhji we are "also" pulling your grasshopper in all kinds of directions

Let me pull the Gulliver a bit more. As others have mentioned, it is easy to classify it as a Natural History image. No ambiguity there, inspite of the background being manmade. It is difficult to consider it as Fine Art Photography. We should be able to ascertain your Artistic intention by examining your image(s). This is too small a sample size for that. That's my humble opinion...

Very interesting image Saurabh. Wonderful background to go with great moment.

I was observing this thread carefully as I am also working on capturing Urban wildlife. I am working on body of work and will present it in few days.