.
So with photoshop if one has samples and uses all the tools and options in moderation. A simplistic fake IMO is easily done having good photo composition. Having to have a photographers eye with a camera no longer necessary, as long as person has some knowledge of what makes a good photo in editing. 
You are putting forth a proposition, that while true within the narrow context of your example, has scant bearing on what is involved in being an outstanding photographer. If you have knowledge of photo history, you know that what makes photos taken by Annie Leibowitz, Helmut Newton, Brett Weston, or Diane Arbus (just a few old school examples) so unique and outstanding are qualities that have nothing to do with the mundane realities of composition, lighting, and exposure.
As someone who has lugged a view camera over hundreds of miles of trails (when I was younger and my back was stronger
), I agree that it all was a "slow" process. But hey, even though I work mostly in the digital darkroom now, it's STILL slow. I just spend hours staring at a monitor instead of a faint image projected on an enlarger baseboard. What's changed is the massive degree of control you have over a RAW file's visual parameters vs. the development/exposure control you have over a given exposure on film. It certainly affords a margin of safety that makes a photographer's batting average higher.
