I like photography, I like taking photos and I like looking at photos. (Except baby snaps. I hate baby snaps! There's always 10,000 of the bloody things and they're all the same, just an hour apart. It's not like the baby's grown a moustache or anything - it's still a small bloody pink thing!)
Sometimes people will see a photo in a magazine and will say "Gee, I wish I'd been there" believing that had they been there they could have taken an equally good, or perhaps better shot.
I'm dubious about this because there's two parts (in my mind) to taking a good photo, recognition and selection. Recognition is where you see something that will make a good photo and Selection comes into play when you decide which angle, what lens, how much of the subject, what camera aperture and what shutter speed to use etc.
Similarly, people can sometimes see a person who's got it all, money, fame, fortune, dates hanging off him or her like a rash and say: "Hell, if I had their money, I'd be charming, witty and funny all the time too".
It ain't the picture and it ain't the camera - it's the operator. Prize winning shots don't all come from far away places that cost a shitload of dosh to get to. It could be a pair of boots on a doorstep, a snail on a lettuce or a spilt cup of coffee. Reconise what you have, and Select the best parts of it to work on.