While I’m not a photoshop expert (as mentioned in an earlier post), I've been shooting as a hobbiest (and occasional paid job) for a few years now and I have seen several shots that look very similar HDR which are accomplished through multiple layers and making adjustments to curves and saturation. I never said it was a replacement for HDR, just a way to get similar results.
Anyone who says that a lens doesn’t matter in regards to picture quality is a fool. Sure, composition makes up a HUGE part of the photo, but if you’re using a crappy lens then it’s definitely going to be apparent in many circumstances. There is a reason good lens (Canon L series for example) are pricey! Better glass!!
Lastly, if you’re shooting with a digital camera and NOT shooting RAW… you’re not getting the best results that you can be. Especially if you want to make some post processing/corrective changes in Photoshop (or something of the sorts).
With photoshop, you can create a very saturated image, and bring up SOME of the highlights and shadows that the RAW file retained. But RAW is only 16bit. HDR images are 32-bit, and on top of that, you can use as many exposures as you want. There are some details in the photo that simply aren't there. And even if they are hiding in there, they're not properly exposed so when you do pull them up, they won't look good. With an HDR image, generally you use 3 or 5 exposures. And in those exposures, you've got everything in the photographed properly exposed on one picture of another. Combining all of those into a pleasing image is an art, and if done right, could not be duplicated in any way with photoshop and 1 RAW image.
I'm not trying to say that you're wrong or don't know what you're talking about, but you freely admit that you don't use photoshop much and don't rely on post processing. So, I don't know that you're the best to be giving out photo manipulation advice.
I agree, great equipment can lead to great photos, but if the photographer doesn't know what he/she is doing, it doesn't matter. I use just a Rebel XT for my big shoots. But I always have a point and shoot Canon on me. And many times I've had people ask me what I took my photo with, only to find out it was my point and shoot. But I do agree that if I had taken the picture with my Rebel, it probably would have came out better. Would the average person notice, though? Someday I hope to have some better lenses. But the cheaper lenses that I have right now have still yielded me ads in magazines, and very soon, an album cover (and more ads from the same group).
Please don't take any of this as attack. Not trying to be at all. But I spend a lot of time with Photoshop. A great image doesn't need Photoshop, but if you know what you're doing, pretty much any image can benefit from it. ESPECIALLY if you had to shoot only using available light, which tends to be my issue (though I just picked up a Vivitar 285HV and a couple of umbrellas, so that's going to be changing). Most of the pictures you see in advertising these days have been Photoshopped quite a bit. They're almost all some blend of multiple exposures and photos as well. Someone who has a huge fanbase (which is growing larger by the minute) is Dave Hill. His photos have appeared in countless ads and such. But there's also some serious post processing there. Everyone has a different method. But the ones that get noticed generally have more post-processing work done.
Printable Version
RE: A little HDR shot of the lady... - 
