I read, some time ago, in a book or in a magazine, that knowing what photographic equipment was used in the production of a certain work is as useless or inappropriate as asking a writer what typewriter he used to write a certain book. I get the idea but I disagree. I understand that what is decisive is the sensibility of the photographer and the choice of the subject to be photographed and not so much the fact that the image was captured on photographic paper inside an empty can of mushrooms or with a Hasselblad film from Ilford or on the digital sensor of a Nikon D700. It seems clear to me that the individual talent for photographing goes well beyond the issues of the means used to capture the image. A bad photographer doesn't start taking good pictures just by using a professional camera.
However, I do not believe that the means used to capture the image is irrelevant. It may be for some viewers but certainly not for everyone. I believe that the means of capturing the image turns out to be closely linked to the final result. I can, when shooting, want to get a certain effect that is based on the square format of the image. For this I may prefer to use a camera that captures the image in square format. Or choose to use another one and then cut the surplus of the square to obtain the desired result. I think that each of the choices, even if valid, will condition the photographic approach in a different way. The same goes for shooting black and white on film or digital in color and converting to black and white in processing. Or in the use of greater or lesser grain. Or the use of a large format camera that will require a totally different approach to the way of photographing. I am not here trying to demonstrate that there are more or less correct ways to achieve a result, but rather to defend that the way chosen to obtain it is an intrinsic condition. I might decide that I want to shoot headlights on color slide film with my Rolleiflex 3.5F. It will not be the right or wrong choice. But the result will necessarily be different from what I get using the Nikon D200 with a 28-80 mm zoom lens.
Then another question arises: to what extent does this discussion interest the viewer of the final image? To what extent will the spectator have the capacity to interpret and integrate the technical data of the capture into the final result? The photographer must answer this question internally and decide how important the process was or was not in his creative work.
And as for the public, if he's like me, he'll think that the process is not indifferent, that the camera used is important in the way of photographing and that he'll obtain more layers of reading an image.
