An Incomplete but Opinionated Taxonomy of Photography, in which I admit my own lack of specificity
Please pay a visit to www.rakmilphotography.com and have a look at my work
There are many types of photography and when I browse through photography sites it’s clear that no one is policing the signage.
As for categorizing photographic genres, what differentiates nature from landscape; or nature from wildlife? Most types of photography come from the more formal arts. Landscapes were broad vistas of nature or cities. Intimate landscapes were studies of smaller spaces. Urban landscape mixed architecture with the wear and tear of every day life. Natural landscapes were trees and flower beds.
If “nature photography” includes all landscapes and all wildlife it might as well include street photography and human portraits.
I doubt anyone will come along and take on the Linnaean task of fixing this. More likely Google will crash on the circular logic.
So why is all this relevant. More importantly when you are told as every photographer eventually is to specialize, it is a good idea to be clear about your objectives to your audience. Calling yourself a nature photographer is meaningless. It says that you have not yet decided to specialize.
Personally I have no problem with that, I am stubbornly avoiding specialization.