So, John Berger writes in 'Understanding a Photograph':
By their nature, photographs have little or no property value because they have no rarity value. The very principle of photography is that the resulting image is not unique, but on the contrary infinitely reproducible. Thus, in twentieth-century terms, photographs are records of things seen. Let us consider them no closer to works of art than cardiograms. We shall then be freer of illusions. Our mistake has been to categorize things as art by considering certain phases of the process of creation. But logically this can make all man-made objects art. It is more useful to categorize art by what has become its social function. It functions as property. Accordingly, photographs are mostly outside the category.
That's a lot to ponder, noting that when you first read it, you think Berger would consider it a negative aspect of photography that it is not art. But it is not that simple, I think. Not-being-property frees photography and makes it a more democratic form of expression? I am not finished thinking about this, but here is a list of links to a few photography sites I happen to like (or, in some cases, not):
Ali Karagoz
Andreas Gursky
Bruce Gilden
Charlie Waite
Chris Jordan
Chromasia
Claire Harlan
Dave Jordano
David Alan Harvey
David Noton
Edward Burtynsky
Elliott Erwitt
Empty
Frank Horvat
Harry Gruyaert
Hendrik Kerstens
Jakob Kjøller
Jeff T. Alu
Joey L.
John Claridge
Krass Clement
Lorissa Shepstone
Mark Citret
Michael Kenna
Michail Moscholios
Michael Wolf
New York City Snaps
Rankin
Robert LaSelle
Roy Harrington
Ruth Orkin
SocialDocumentary
Stefan Nielsen
Tom van Schelven
Tom Widlak
Vivian Maier
Viggo Rivad
William Eggleston
Willem Verbeeck