What's most important?

I'd agree with that.
You could take a group of people with identical cameras, to the same location separately, and you would get a range of shots from rubbish to brilliant.
A good photographer would see shots that others wouldn't even notice were there.

 

Ah something I know about!
Dim is spot on. The digital camera is a tool. It collects data and produces an image for you. The clever camera manufacturers try to make the camera as 'idiot' proof as possible so it can replicate what you are seeing. But in most cases falls way short of what your eyes can see.
I'll give you a simple ample.
Take a landscape photo based on the correct exposure for the sky and the land will be burnt out. (under-exposed)
Take a exposure for the land and the lovely sky will be white. (over-exposed)

It certainly wasn't what your eyes were seeing, but the human eye is far more advanced than any camera.

With digital imaging programs such as PS you can correct this with a bit of know how.

Photoshop was originally designed as a strictly photo editing piece of software. This means tone, colour balance, brightness, contrast amongst other things could be corrected. Remember a camera is only a means to collect data.

Before the digital age you had to take great care with shooting because you couldn't correct anything apart from the odd burning and dodging at the printing stage in the darkroom.

Of course you need a certain talent to take a decent shot in the first place. You need to familiarise yourself with the camera, know what it can do and understand it's limitations.
I've seen some fabulous photo's taken with point and shoot cameras so it's not all about the camera. The skill plays it's part when you sit for hours watching a Kingfisher and getting the shot as it lifts the fish out of the water. Or maybe capturing an horrific moment from a war. In those circumstances the photographer is in total control of the shot and doesn't get a second chance. This is why photographers such as Don McCullin and Andy Rouse, respectively are or were so good at what they did.

McCullin took war photo's in the film era, Rouse takes photo's in todays digital era and Andy's photo's in every case will have been corrected but that doesn't take away the fact that he is a fantastic wildlife photographer.

If anyone has asperations to produce then learn PS inside out.

 

Can I add that you can still ruin a photo just as much as you can enhance one in PS.
You still need an artist eye to improve it properly.

 

Mandy, I see you 'see' things as I do. :WINK1:

 

Without reading through ALL of this thread, my thoughts.

A camera is a tool, to capture images. The quality of that image is determined by the equipment used, and it's subsequent 'processing'. So, get the best that you can afford, and become a wizard at using PS, simples. Is that it? No! To me, photos should capture the magic of the moment, and at least, be interesting. That's where the imagination of the picture taker comes in. Taking pics from an unusual angle, using interesting apertures, just using a little 'artistry'. When I used my old Canon SLR, out of 36 shots, if I got one interesting shot, I was happy. Am I any good at it? Sadly, no. I would gladly exchange 100 shots for one decent shot, albeit not perfect , something that got my attention. I guess it all depends on what ones expectations are.

 

You certainly can indeed Mandy. I like your photo's on Flickr btw. I'll add you if you don't mind?

 

But Astro's original question

The answer is THE PERSON TAKING THE PICTURE

You can have the most expensive equipment in the world, If you do not have the EYE and the knowledge, you will not take a good picture

On the other hand a Photographer with the EYE and Knowledge can use a pin hole camera and produce a magnificent picture

So for any camera, the most important bit is 8" behind the view finder (ones brain)

Jack McH