If art is goal does gear matter so much?

[Steve Weldon]

I don't think you can separate equipment and 'art' when it comes to photography.  As much as some try.

The fact is, photography requires equipment.  You cannot produce a print without a long list of equipment.

So obviously gear matters.  In matters in a multitude of ways, from user satisfaction to photographic capability.  It matters in the way a skilled carpenter maintains the sharpest set of chisels possible, or a draftsman his instruments.

I ask you this.. Is medicine art?  Surgery?  I know some medical professionals who think so.  If you required a major surgery, would you want the surgeon to have the best tools and equipment available, or perhaps only what was available 100 years ago, or the cheapest set made in India?  Before you go off and say the quality of the surgeon is more important than the tools.. consider that's a given.  But also consider there will be some surgeries which can be done better by a lesser surgeon with state of the art tools, than a better surgeon with lesser tools.

Photography is this way.  Of course gear matters.  It just doesn't matter for ALL aspects of the photographic exercise.

The photographer sets the priorities.  Perhaps its the most captures in a set amount of time to document, perhaps it's being able to shoot in the lowest light, maybe its the most detail.. Whatever his/her priorities.. he looks in his bag and selects the best tools (equipment) to serve his artistic priorities.  He/she does it, we do it.  Photographers do it.  We'll always do it.

As better tools become available, they'll inspire greater visions which we didn't think possible yesterday.  But now that they're possible creative juices flow and and we see photographs today, we didn't see yesterday. 

With video now commonplace in still camera bodies.. how soon will it be until we can shoot full resolution images at 60-120fps?  Movie or still?  It's only electronics which will make this possible and it will become possible soon.  As the electronics develop we'll be able to take more frames per second, more resolution per frame, shoot in less light, record more details, and achieve higher image quality than ever before.  It's just a matter of time.  If you haven't already considered and desired some of these possibilities then you're way behind others who have.  Equipment is only part of the equation, another part is vision.  Envisioning that which we can't yet achieve and working towards it.. is an entirely different level.

The "does equipment really matter" debate/argument is limiting, boring to those who can think.  It's like asking "does water matter?"  "Does food matter?"  Lots of things matter.  And depending on the vision different subsets of things become part of the equation.

Better to ask "Define your vision and submit your equation."  Think about it..

[RSL]

I don't think you can separate equipment and 'art' when it comes to photography.  As much as some try.

The fact is, photography requires equipment.  You cannot produce a print without a long list of equipment.

So obviously gear matters.  In matters in a multitude of ways, from user satisfaction to photographic capability.  It matters in the way a skilled carpenter maintains the sharpest set of chisels possible, or a draftsman his instruments.

Steve, Well, you're right. You have to have a camera to make a photograph. But the same thing's true of painting or intaglio art like engraving or etching or even woodcuts. So you're suggesting that the kind of brushes or engraving tools or chisels the artist uses is what makes the difference between good art and bad art? In other words, if Leonardo had had better equipment the Mona Lisa would have been a better painting?

I ask you this.. Is medicine art?  Surgery?  I know some medical professionals who think so.  If you required a major surgery, would you want the surgeon to have the best tools and equipment available, or perhaps only what was available 100 years ago, or the cheapest set made in India?  Before you go off and say the quality of the surgeon is more important than the tools.. consider that's a given.  But also consider there will be some surgeries which can be done better by a lesser surgeon with state of the art tools, than a better surgeon with lesser tools.

What I'd want is a surgeon who's an artist and who has the tools he feels most comfortable working with. That might not be the latest gear. Can you give me an example of a lesser surgeon doing a better job with state of the art tools than a better surgeon with lesser tools?

Photography is this way.  Of course gear matters.  It just doesn't matter for ALL aspects of the photographic exercise.

The photographer sets the priorities.  Perhaps its the most captures in a set amount of time to document, perhaps it's being able to shoot in the lowest light, maybe its the most detail.. Whatever his/her priorities.. he looks in his bag and selects the best tools (equipment) to serve his artistic priorities.  He/she does it, we do it.  Photographers do it.  We'll always do it.

You started out talking about the relationship of equipment to art. Are you suggesting that the most captures in a set amount of time will produce art? Somehow that doesn't sound like an artistic priority to me.

The "does equipment really matter" debate/argument is limiting, boring to those who can think.  It's like asking "does water matter?"  "Does food matter?"  Lots of things matter.  And depending on the vision different subsets of things become part of the equation.

Better to ask "Define your vision and submit your equation."  Think about it..

You lost me completely with that last sentence. What equation are you talking about? E= mc2?

But I guess I'm not one of those folks who can think. The does equipment really matter debate is important because of publications like "Popular Photography," "Shutterbug," and their clones. Beginners read these magazines and the magazines teach them that equipment is everything. If you want to be Cartier-Bresson you must have a Leica M9. If you want to be Ansel Adams you must have a view camera. The more expensive your camera the better pictures you'll make. Nothing could be further from the truth. A beginner is going to make better pictures with a point-and-shoot than he can make with an M9, and certainly much better pictures than he can make with a view camera. Someone needs to explain that fact to beginners.

It all comes back to what Cartier-Bresson said and I've quoted on these fora over and over again: "Photographing is nothing. Looking is everything." If you're holding a point-and-shoot and you know how to look you'll produce much better photographs than if you're holding a Hasselblad and you're blind. Better equipment on the horizon isn't going to change that fact.

[Steve Weldon]

Steve, Well, you're right. You have to have a camera to make a photograph. But the same thing's true of painting or intaglio art like engraving or etching or even woodcuts. So you're suggesting that the kind of brushes or engraving tools or chisels the artist uses is what makes the difference between good art and bad art? In other words, if Leonardo had had better equipment the Mona Lisa would have been a better painting?

Have you studied art?  I have a bit.. basic classes.  But yes, what paints, brushes, chisels, etc.. it all matters.  Artists in those days (before commercial materials) were fanatical about mixing their perfect pigments/oils/lacquers and finding the perfect materials for their brushes.  They were this way because how much you can 'load' a brush is related to the length of a stroke, what type of brush makes differences in texture which is an element in the composition, and much more.. so clearly yes equipment matters.

To your second question.  I don't know and either does anyone else but Leonardo.  I don't know what he envisioned and I don't know how close he came to his vision and if/how much he was held back by his equipment.  So.. maybe.  Maybe not.  It was a bit of a strawman question no?

What I'd want is a surgeon who's an artist and who has the tools he feels most comfortable working with. That might not be the latest gear. Can you give me an example of a lesser surgeon doing a better job with state of the art tools than a better surgeon with lesser tools?

Listening to understand is a skill.  Many don't have it.  They immediately refuse to consider anything that doesn't fit their pre-defined views and come up with "can you give me a link.." sort of response.  If you cannot understand that certain medicines (equipment), certain types of xray/MRI/Pet scanners (equipment), and other DME gear can limit or enhance a doctor then it's not worth going into.

You started out talking about the relationship of equipment to art. Are you suggesting that the most captures in a set amount of time will produce art? Somehow that doesn't sound like an artistic priority to me.

Yes, for some photographers being able to make more captures per second, having the camera available to make one capture after another was just taken, etc.. 'could' certainly result in art.  You really can't think of photographers who depend heavily on being able to make captures with faster frame rates (sports photographers, wildlife photographers, wedding photographers, etc)  Really?  Yes, enhanced speed will help someone produce art by getting shots they wouldn't have otherwise captured, by obtaining sequences that otherwise wouldn't have been possible, or just having the camera ready after one shot when another presents itself.
 

You lost me completely with that last sentence. What equation are you talking about? E= mc2?

The equation is should be clear to a reader.  It must be clear to a photographer.

But I guess I'm not one of those folks who can think. The does equipment really matter debate is important because of publications like "Popular Photography," "Shutterbug," and their clones. Beginners read these magazines and the magazines teach them that equipment is everything. If you want to be Cartier-Bresson you must have a Leica M9. If you want to be Ansel Adams you must have a view camera. The more expensive your camera the better pictures you'll make. Nothing could be further from the truth. A beginner is going to make better pictures with a point-and-shoot than he can make with an M9, and certainly much better pictures than he can make with a view camera. Someone needs to explain that fact to beginners.

I respectfully disagree.  The debate continues because people are saying exactly as you said and it doesn't make sense to people who can think for themselves.  What started out as a good natured word of advice (worry about your art more and equipment less) during an era people where scrambling for more megapixels.. has been blown totally out of context to the point where it just sounds silly.

It all comes back to what Cartier-Bresson said and I've quoted on these fora over and over again: "Photographing is nothing. Looking is everything." If you're holding a point-and-shoot and you know how to look you'll produce much better photographs than if you're holding a Hasselblad and you're blind. Better equipment on the horizon isn't going to change that fact.

Here's a quote for you.  "There are those who quote, and those who will be quoted."  Which one do you want to be?

[RSL]

Listening to understand is a skill.  Many don't have it.  They immediately refuse to consider anything that doesn't fit their pre-defined views and come up with "can you give me a link.." sort of response.  If you cannot understand that certain medicines (equipment), certain types of xray/MRI/Pet scanners (equipment), and other DME gear can limit or enhance a doctor then it's not worth going into.

Well, I guess you'll never know whether or not I can't listen unless you give me a phone call, but I can read. You said: "But also consider there will be some surgeries which can be done better by a lesser surgeon with state of the art tools, than a better surgeon with lesser tools." I asked you for an example, not a link. Your reply, above, doesn't address the question much less offer an answer.

Yes, for some photographers being able to make more captures per second, having the camera available to make one capture after another was just taken, etc.. 'could' certainly result in art.  You really can't think of photographers who depend heavily on being able to make captures with faster frame rates (sports photographers, wildlife photographers, wedding photographers, etc)  Really?  Yes, enhanced speed will help someone produce art by getting shots they wouldn't have otherwise captured, by obtaining sequences that otherwise wouldn't have been possible, or just having the camera ready after one shot when another presents itself.

Somehow I just never considered sports, wildlife, or wedding photographs to be art -- especially the kind of sports, wildlife, or wedding photographs that have to be shot in rapid sequence. I've shot birds on the wing for years and long ago I learned that looking and shooting at the appropriate instant will give me results, while shooting in 9 frame per second bursts won't.

The equation is should be clear to a reader.  It must be clear to a photographer.

Huh?

I respectfully disagree.  The debate continues because people are saying exactly as you said and it doesn't make sense to people who can think for themselves.  What started out as a good natured word of advice (worry about your art more and equipment less) during an era people where scrambling for more megapixels.. has been blown totally out of context to the point where it just sounds silly.

Sorry, Steve. You lost me again.

Here's a quote for you.  "There are those who quote, and those who will be quoted."  Which one do you want to be?

Here's another quote for you: "The best camera in the world is the one you have with you." That's a quote all  photographers should take to heart, whether they can think for themselves or not.

[Rob C]

Some see pink elephants, some see nothing; why the hell do I have to see circular arguments?

Rob C

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... The "does equipment really matter" debate/argument is limiting, boring to those who can think...

I have to agree with Steve on the boring part (setting aside his signature condescending tone). The debate is boring if for no other reason then for the fact that two camps tend to talk past each other, using rehashed arguments. Unless you are reading it for the first time in your life, of course. And as in many others instances were beliefs dominate, no amount of reasoning is going to change much.

As for me, I assume photography is a craft and art at the same time, and my belief then is that equipment matters much more for the craft part, and less (or not at all) for the art part. Or to rephrase, the more the art aspect dominates, the less equipment matters.

[RSL]

Quite right, Slobodan, but let me remind you what the OP's opening paragraph said:

Just curious what the general reactions of photographers are when they're looking at photographic images from an art appreciation point of view.

(emphasis added)

[scrinch]

I don't think you can separate equipment and 'art' when it comes to photography.  As much as some try.

The fact is, photography requires equipment.  You cannot produce a print without a long list of equipment.

I have seen wonderful prints done with a pin hole in a 50 gallon drum and print paper used as a paper negative.   Conversely, I have seen many, many, terrible images made using the most expensive modern equipment available. 

As far as cameras shooting 100 frames a second to create a work of art....well.....I just cant buy into that.   If you give enough monkeys enough typewriters and they have enough time...they might write the same words as Shakespeare in " A Midsummers Night Dream",  but will you call it art or just a mistake?   I know my feelings but, perhaps I have been too influenced by Ansel Adams and his thoughts on pre visualization and careful craftsmanship. 

[Steve Weldon]

Well, I guess you'll never know whether or not I can't listen unless you give me a phone call, but I can read. You said: "But also consider there will be some surgeries which can be done better by a lesser surgeon with state of the art tools, than a better surgeon with lesser tools." I asked you for an example, not a link. Your reply, above, doesn't address the question much less offer an answer.

If you can't think this through on your own then it's just part of the presentation which is lost on you.  Sorry.
 

Somehow I just never considered sports, wildlife, or wedding photographs to be art -- especially the kind of sports, wildlife, or wedding photographs that have to be shot in rapid sequence. I've shot birds on the wing for years and long ago I learned that looking and shooting at the appropriate instant will give me results, while shooting in 9 frame per second bursts won't.

So now we're down to defining "art" to that which only the reader can agree with.  I suppose this is your choice, but there are a lot of wildlife, sports, and wedding photographers who would strongly disagree with you.  This is one of the major issues of the debate, 'what you shoot isn't art'..  Sorry, but I don't feel qualified to make that decision for others.  Absent an agreed upon definition of art, we must accept that photography is art, photography of all types, and the valuation of it being art or not is in the eye of the photographer.

Here's another quote for you: "The best camera in the world is the one you have with you." That's a quote all  photographers should take to heart, whether they can think for themselves or not.

Another problem with quotes is they're often not original and more often misquoted.  This particular quote was used by the gun crowd for decades that I know of.. would you care to change the words around?

As to the point.. I get it and I agree.  And I'm not saying a better camera will in all cases make better art.  However in some it clearly will and denying it serves nobody.

[Steve Weldon]

I have to agree with Steve on the boring part (setting aside his signature condescending tone). The debate is boring if for no other reason then for the fact that two camps tend to talk past each other, using rehashed arguments. Unless you are reading it for the first time in your life, of course. And as in many others instances were beliefs dominate, no amount of reasoning is going to change much.

As for me, I assume photography is a craft and art at the same time, and my belief then is that equipment matters much more for the craft part, and less (or not at all) for the art part. Or to rephrase, the more the art aspect dominates, the less equipment matters.

You're just upset when someone 'out' condescends you.. 

I'd tend to agree with your last statement.. but until we can remove the equipment from the required list.. equipment matters.  To which degree will vary by photographer and circumstance.

[Steve Weldon]

I have seen wonderful prints done with a pin hole in a 50 gallon drum and print paper used as a paper negative.   Conversely, I have seen many, many, terrible images made using the most expensive modern equipment available. 

As far as cameras shooting 100 frames a second to create a work of art....well.....I just cant buy into that.   If you give enough monkeys enough typewriters and they have enough time...they might write the same words as Shakespeare in " A Midsummers Night Dream",  but will you call it art or just a mistake?   I know my feelings but, perhaps I have been too influenced by Ansel Adams and his thoughts on pre visualization and careful craftsmanship. 

1.  This is the tired example so often misused in such debates which is easily turned around the other way if someone so wishes.  It really means nothing.

2.  About monkeys.. here we have an elephant camp where the elephants draw paintings using a brush, their trunk, and different water colors.. and these paintings go for ridiculous amounts of money.  Sitting there watching them one day I noticed even the elephants clearly favored certain brushes and paint types over others.. remarkable!

3.  Ansel Adams.  You do realize there are many devotee's who try to replicate his equipment as accurately as possible, his steps, the scenes, the right time of the year?  I wonder why they worry so much about the equipment?

[RSL]

If you can't think this through on your own then it's just part of the presentation which is lost on you.  Sorry.

Steve, Afraid I'll have to let this penetrating response pass by since I'm not much into responding to imbecilic insults
 

So now we're down to defining "art" to that which only the reader can agree with.  I suppose this is your choice, but there are a lot of wildlife, sports, and wedding photographers who would strongly disagree with you.  This is one of the major issues of the debate, 'what you shoot isn't art'..  Sorry, but I don't feel qualified to make that decision for others.  Absent an agreed upon definition of art, we must accept that photography is art, photography of all types, and the valuation of it being art or not is in the eye of the photographer.

In a couple other threads I've already said all I have to say about any attempt to define art, but I do have a bit of a problem with your last sentence, which seems to accept as a default position that anything that comes out of a camera is art. The last half of that sentence tells me you missed the vertical pronoun in my first sentence.

As to the point.. I get it and I agree.  And I'm not saying a better camera will in all cases make better art.  However in some it clearly will and denying it serves nobody.

How about giving us an example of a case where a better camera made better art.

[Steve Weldon]

Steve, Afraid I'll have to let this penetrating response pass by since I'm not much into responding to imbecilic insults

I'm hurt.  You took something I was trying to let pass because you clearly didn't 'want' to understand it (remember what I said about "listening to understand" being a skill?) and then you directly insult me?  Not nice Mr. RSL..

Look, I'm not going to respond to the "show me a link" and "give me an example" type of response.  I wrote a post that included many points supporting my position.  You choose to only address the ones you thought you could debate, while ignoring the ones you didn't.  When you did this, by default, you accepted that equipment matters.
 

In a couple other threads I've already said all I have to say about any attempt to define art, but I do have a bit of a problem with your last sentence, which seems to accept as a default position that anything that comes out of a camera is art. The last half of that sentence tells me you missed the vertical pronoun in my first sentence.

Right.. so you make a blanket statement that you don't consider wildlife, sport, or wedding photography "art."  And then you hide behind "I've already said all.."  Fine.  I agree, you said too much.  This clearly shows you position to be one of snobbery.  I don't agree with this and either will most people who shoot these genres.  It was only a single example, but perhaps a revealing one I put in there to draw out exactly this sort of mindset.

What you're missing in this.. is that it doesn't matter what YOU define as art.  I could care less.  I personally don't care for leaves and pine needles and puddles of water some label "fine art."   But I respect the pine needle photographer enough to not wholesale discount his work.  If HE thinks its art then it's art to him and that's all that matters.   Some people will never understand this.. and it as "anti-art" a mindset as you could come up with. 

And did you ever notice it's the "fine art" crowd who spend the most on their equipment?  Wouldn't it be ironic if they're the ones usually telling us equipment doesn't matter? 

Some even dare to judge 'art' by how much the pieces sell for.  If that's the case I know a couple elephants who are probably making more than most of us here..

How about giving us an example of a case where a better camera made better art.

If you're that limited that you can't think of multiple examples right off the cuff.. then well.. shrug..

Why don't you give us an example of photographic art that didn't involve/require equipment?  When you can do this then you could logically claim that with 'some' types of photographic art equipment doesn't matter. 

Go ahead.. provide the example.  Demonstrate your logic..

[Rob C]

Don't you just love it when logic disappears out the widow sans parachute?

Rob C

[RSL]

Look, I'm not going to respond to the "show me a link" and "give me an example" type of response

Of course you aren't since you won't be able to find any examples.
 

Why don't you give us an example of photographic art that didn't involve/require equipment?  When you can do this then you could logically claim that with 'some' types of photographic art equipment doesn't matter. 

Go ahead.. provide the example.  Demonstrate your logic..

Steve, Have you ever heard of a guy named Laszlo Moholy Nagy? I'd guess the answer's pretty obvious.

[fredjeang]

I have to agree with Steve on the boring part (setting aside his signature condescending tone). The debate is boring if for no other reason then for the fact that two camps tend to talk past each other, using rehashed arguments. Unless you are reading it for the first time in your life, of course. And as in many others instances were beliefs dominate, no amount of reasoning is going to change much.

As for me, I assume photography is a craft and art at the same time, and my belief then is that equipment matters much more for the craft part, and less (or not at all) for the art part. Or to rephrase, the more the art aspect dominates, the less equipment matters.

and I'd add: the more the art aspect dominates, the less equipment matters and the more expensive equipment actually appears.
A good artist uses a lot of different tools (included the photoshopery part), but of course, tools don't make talent, they only can enhance the talent that is there or simplify the workflow.
On the contrary, a 50.000euros camera in the hand of a bad artist enhance the same way his mediocrity.
So be carefull with high-end gear.

[Paul Sumi]

...Have you ever heard of a guy named Laszlo Moholy Nagy?

Man Ray's "Rayograms" also come to mind.

Paul

[feppe]

and I'd add: the more the art aspect dominates, the less equipment matters and the more expensive equipment actually appears.

You're saying that the more art-focused a photographer is, she spends more and more on expensive equipment - but the equipment doesn't matter in the end? That doesn't make sense unless artists are extremely irrational people - even more-so than the general public already thinks

Also, that doesn't hold up under scrutiny: Avedon, Helmut Newton, HCB, even Leibovitz didn't always use high-end equipment, or even often, yet they are widely considered artists of the highest order.

I would go as far as saying that the current fetishism of equipment (and IQ) over art is misguided at best. This is blatant and pervasive on this board, but hopefully not out in the real world.

[fredjeang]

Avedon and HN have used everything but mainly MF. Avedon shooted a lot of LF even in fashion. HCB mostly Leica, like Garcia Alix, wich is not a cheap 35mm gear for beginners (see the costs of the M glasses even second-hand) and Annie used mostly Mamiya MF, Hasselblads digitals, 35mm etc...The imagery they produce is expensive.
Without talking about the army of assistants, some of the best techs in the words, best printers, best retouchers etc...
Those people, except maybe HCB wich equipment is more "humble", where not point-and-shooters.
There is no paradox, yes they started, they made their name with whatever, they built their talent as Russ said with the-camera-that-was-with-them, they also used light equipment on purpose, yes, but also there is no mystery when you hang on museum walls 2 or 3 meters portraits print with such standard like Avedon there is no averageness or light equipment behind. Those are in general carefully planed session with budgets involved and team work.
We are not in Flickr planet there.
Some Avedon current settings
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnjH-AtGU3s&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ork312iNPDw&feature=related

Or this one that also shoots with a small 5MP DP1 or similar film camera when he casts.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zl3EtjQt6VA&feature=related

Or Annie, look where is the digital hasselblad as well
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNyIUlra9LU&feature=related

Beginners should forget about gear when talent and gain a personal style is about, but should be concern (and will be) about it when things are going more serious and there is responsability and money involved.
There is no problem to shoot a 150 euros Holga, if the photographer has talent it will extract good things from it. Art can be done with whatever, but the ones who succeded as artists generally do not only use whatever but a vast palette wich includes to a large extend the high-end equipment.

[feppe]

Avedon and HN have used everything but mainly MF. Avedon shooted a lot of LF even in fashion. HCB mostly Leica, like Garcia Alix, wich is not a cheap 35mm gear for beginners (see the costs of the M glasses even second-hand) and Annie used mostly Mamiya MF, Hasselblads digitals, 35mm etc...The imagery they produce is expensive.
Without talking about the army of assistants, some of the best techs in the words, best printers, best retouchers etc...
Those people, except maybe HCB wich equipment is more "humble", where not point-and-shooters.
There is no paradox, yes they started, they made their name with whatever, they built their talent as Russ said with the-camera-that-was-with-them, they also used light equipment on purpose, yes, but also there is no mystery when you hang on museum walls 2 or 3 meters portraits print with such standard like Avedon there is no averageness or light equipment behind. Those are in general carefully planed session with budgets involved and team work.
We are not in Flickr planet there.
Some Avedon current settings
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnjH-AtGU3s&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ork312iNPDw&feature=related

Or this one that also shoots with a small 5MP DP1 or similar film camera when he casts.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARav6Cq3VZA&feature=relmfu
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zl3EtjQt6VA&feature=related

Or Annie, look where is the digital hasselblad as well
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNyIUlra9LU&feature=related

Beginners should forget about gear when talent and gain a personal style is about, but should be concern (and will be) about it when things are going more serious and there is responsability and money involved.
There is no problem to shoot a 150 euros Holga, if the photographer has talent it will extract good things from it. Art can be done with whatever, but the ones who succeded as artists generally do not only use whatever but a vast palette wich includes to a large extend the high-end equipment.

Spoken like a true 21st century victim of marketing. At least you didn't drop manufacturer names which seems to be the de rigueur on pro blogs these days - often with the disclaimer "although they pay me [to push their products], I use their gear because it's the best."

I'm fully aware of the work and equipment the people I listed  - that's why I brought them up - so there's no reason to go on a googling binge. One can produce similar links to support the polar opposite of what your links suggest. If you actually read what I wrote, I acknowledged they do use expensive equipment (not limited to cameras), but that they also occasionally (Avedon) or often (Newton) used cheap(er) equipment. For the truly hard-working top-tier artist equipment is not a pre-requisite for great results.

And hard work, dedication, sweat and tears will always supercede "talent," which is a concept as valid as astrology, and thoroughly debunked.

As an aside, I think I spotted chromed light stands in one of the Mario Testino clips - not to mention the talent that doesn't get out of bed for less than 10k

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, you seem to be talking about commercial photography - often an anathema to art.