As pointed out by Emiswelt, the question is subjective and somewhat unclear.
- Technical skill as in "hardware technology"? Then it is a question of money.
- Technical skill as in "the right settings", then it is to a large degree a question of software these days. Software that is effective whilst easiest to use is generally making the cut.
A seemingly uninteresting photograph can become interesting just by cropping in to specific details in the photo.
Night photography is something else entirely. Humans are actually seeing with their "mind" rather than the raw information stream from their eyes. There are actually 'filters' that ensure seeming blackness, when you are closing your eyes, otherwise your mind would just continue to project images.
Night vision in humans is more subjective than day vision., rendering the question of best reproducing what you or the photographer saw that night somewhat futile.
Technically I recently tried to estimate the requirements for a night shot to be as good as the motion-perception in a young person, after ones eyes have adapted to the dark. At the least ISO 2M. The best commercially available camera can shoot at ISO 400k.
"they take no real work"
A subjective statement.
Very smart people devised those algorithms we are using nowadays, but it is a technological evolution if more and more people are using these new technologies at expense of former technologies. Without placing judgment.
Tilt shift lenses are probably one of the best examples where the hardware equivalent simply makes no sense of buying these days.
Lastly, of course anyone would want to have as much unhindered access to as much information as possible. That is why most photographer's are shooting RAW
Ideally, some wouldn't want lenses on their camera to begin with. (http://goo.gl/EfrTas) But right now DARPA and research organizations are probably the only ones who can afford not to.
But it would probably be better to take that discussion up with someone who knows much more than I do in the field of post processing. Like Mikko Lagerstedt
So, what does it take to make a good photo?
Subjectively speaking, literally not much. Simplicity may suffice.
Objectively speaking, I am sure there are numerous papers on human aesthetics in vision.
After all, marketing relies on photos, which often makes for well funded fields of research.
Does the technical side matter?
It always matters.
Is it possible for an image which is artistically original but technically poor to be a good photograph?
Not sure what you mean. But novelty that is not gross, is generally liked.