What I am lacking is the ability to create compelling photography but that is a process independent of technology.
I can go on and on and on about how I learned photography with just a 55mm f/1.8 and a 135mm f/3.5 prime lens. I can go on and on and on about how the 55mm taught me to work within the limitations of the focal length, i.e. DoF and FoV. I can go on and on and on about how the 55mm taught me about angles and moments. I can go on and on and on ... but I won't. (Chorus: "Too late!")
I always challenge people, who want to really learn photography, to pick one prime lens and shoot straight to JPEG for three months. Everything, one prime lens in JPEG. Do it!
I so totally disagree.
I think he said that so that you are limited to just you and the camera. Zero Post-processing. If you can take amazing pictures, then that makes you a photographer. Post-processing makes you an editor, and although thats what it takes to be photographer nowadays i.e. be both photographer & editor... It wasn't like that back in the day. And you have to agree... Seldomly, do we all take good pictures anymore, we all take half-assed pictures then throw it in lightroom to correct it, then crop it so they frame it better and lastly do a bunch of touch ups to make it clean and/or artsy.
It shouldn't matter at which point of your workflow you create something beautiful or meaningful. It could be by being there while a significant scene unfolds before your camera, it could be when you use a photographic tool to transform something mundane, or it could be when you use a post-processing tool instead (this, of course, doesn't pertain to photojournalism). One shouldn't be a stickler for the technique as long as the end result satisfies. One shouldn't be limited to the semantics of what it means to be a photographer and what it means to be a photo editor.
The fact that unavailability of editing tools made for better photographers is the same as saying removing seat belts made for safer drivers.