The hunt for good photographs,--or good technology?

I agree with everyone else-this week's reading was interesting and informative. It was clear and concise, the photos were interesting and I found the suggestions on how to find a good feature photograph really helpful and applicable to all types of journalism. Yet I was also troubled by the reading.

Many of Labelle's references (especially in the section on preparedness) to film and ways of shooting were out of date since the onset of digital photography. While I believe that great photographers have the ability to see and capture moments in a way that I can only aspire to mimic, Labelle's advice to "bend your knees or change angles" when striving to keep a photo clean and uncluttered made me wonder why he didn't just mention the cropping tool in photoshop.

Last week's little experiment with the camera definitely enlightened me as to how difficult photojournalism can be, and I now realize that I personally am not and probably never will be visually artistic enough to win any photo competitions. Good photography is an art form and in my opinion requires some natural talent. But there are more ways to enhance and correct photos now than ever before. We can crop a photo, blur a background and grayscale an image with a mouse click or a quick keystroke. When reading this assignment, I found myself wondering if high-tech digital cameras and powerful cropping and editing computer programs like Photoshop have made photography too easy. Do we really have to be that good at "seeing" and focusing on a subject to produce a nice photo, or can we just create one after cropping the image, lightening or darkening the photo, blurring the background, etc...

If I sound controversial, it's because I'd like to hear other opinions on this. What do you all think? With all the recent advancements in photojournalism, can anyone who understands the technology be a good photographer?