The race for a better photo

I used to be an avid reader of photography magazines, recently digital photography and going back in time, magazines related to film photography.
How little has changed over the years. The magazines are full of reviews on kit, exploring the technical issues, comparing models and manufacturers hoping to enlighten us to the benefits of the new tech over the old. Now, this is nothing new. Back in the days of film cameras, kit reviews were the stuff of life for most magazines, just as they are today. Where things have changed somewhat is that todays digital cameras have sensors that replace film. Electronic in camera and post production editing has changed the  landscape which once sat with film processors. Now, with some investment and training, most people can perform a range of edits to their images and the adventurous can go to town with all manner of software, some of which is painfully expensive.
The question arises, "Does this make for a better photograph?"
Back in the days of film and before, the memorable pictures both public and personal rarely evolve from a bad photo to a good one. A little cropping and enhancing adds to a good pic, but cannot make a silk purse out of a sows ear. The same applies in the digital age. Similarly, its a pointless exercise spending a fortune on the tech hoping that make a better photograph. All it does is enables the shooter to make a better print.
The important aspects of photography are the ability to see an image before clicking on the shutter button. Knowing how light behaves, and being familiar with the limitations and strengths that all cameras possess.