I kind of disagree with this. It's true the most important thing with any picture is the guy behind the camera, you can be the best photographer in bad lighting and struggle with the limitations of your equipment.
In a recent discussion at work we put it like this.
1. Photographer
2. Luck (although the more skilled you become, the better you get at being in the right place at the right time)
3. Glass
4. Camera body.
You don't have light listed, so I'd argue that the list is incomplete. Light is either #1 or #2 depending on the type of photography you're doing-- but photographer is really about the things the photographer brings to the table- which can be technical and artistic. An artistic photographer who can't get the technical part right is as useless as a technical photographer who can't get the artistic part right. There needs to be at least a good balance of the two, but those who excel at both are the ones who do the best work.
I'd argue that if you're relying on luck, you're doing it wrong. Place and time are more important for nature and some other types of fine art, followed by informed place, time and framing, for some genres such as sports where there's some element of luck, but that is really based more upon skill and experience and luck is a minor part (and the difference between great shots and fantastic shots more than anything.) Most commercial non-sports photography involves zero luck, including weddings, food, pets, products...
Even with nature, there's less luck involved in most shots than you'd think. Plus, there are very few professional nature photographers who aren't shooting landscapes who don't still bring some light to the party- even if it's just to ensure a catchlight in a bird's eye.
Bad light is going to make for a bad picture, no matter how much you try to "clean it up" in post. Probably 95% of the images on this forum with technical issues suck because the lighting isn't good. Shooting with more capable equipment in terms of camera sensors and often lenses rarely makes the images better. By the same token, 95% of the images here that suck because of artistic issues suck because the photographer doesn't know the first thing about photographic composition.
My list would go something like this:
1. Light
2. Composition
3. Subject
4. Lens
5. Camera
In "found" art like wildlife, nature, and fine art without a model, if the first two aren't right, I'm not hitting the shutter button. In "made" art like studio work, you control at least the first two, and sometimes you need additional professionals like make-up artists and food stylists to get #3. In event photography, you hit more corner cases where equipment makes sure you have the shots you need, but 1 and 2 still stand out. Luck's a bonus in professional photography, and you should strive to have it that way in personal photography too.
You can't previsualize luck. Show me a great photographer who doesn't previsualize their shots as often as possible.
Paul
----------
thanks!!
I just bought "Light: Science and Magic" on kindle
Let me know what you think of it. I should probably get it in eBook format, I've lost at least three copies over the years that have been lent out never to be seen again.
Paul