给摄影爱好者：Why Your Camera Doesn\'t Matter

bhpxorn

无意中发现这篇文章，非常有意思，因此放上来和大家分享！
文章有点长，但是每一句话都一针见血，当头棒喝！
与爱摄影的你，一起敲敲你的头吧！
原文地址：http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/notcamera.htm
为何在60年后的今天，当摄影器材不论是在照相机的功能、镜头的锐利度、底片的细致度以及解析度都已经改进到一定的程度，却仍然没有人能够取代或甚至拍出相同於安塞亚当斯(Ansel Adams)在1940年代所拍摄的作品？
Why is it that with over 60 years of improvements in cameras, lens sharpness and film grain, resolution and dynamic range that no one has been able to equal what Ansel Adams did back in the 1940s?
在安塞所处的时代，并没有像Photoshop这样的电脑软体，那么他是如何创造出那些无与伦比的作品？许多企图挑战大师的人很快发现自己的失败，他们有些或许可以很接近如摄影大师杰克迪金卡(Jack Dykinga)一般，然而每个人的作品却又不尽相同。
Ansel didn't even have Photoshop! How did he do it? Most attempts fall short, some are as good but different like Jack Dykinga, but no one is the same.
为何有摄影师带著最特别的摄影器材，前往他们利用网际网路(Internet)所取得，当年安塞亚当斯或是杰克迪金卡拍摄照片时所站过的精确位置，他们透过观景窗构图，并且小心翼翼地比对著他们手上那安塞或是杰克的摄影作品，试图仿造大师们的心血结晶，然而，结局往往是他们或许能够拍到非常接近大师作品的外观，却没有办法得到跟原作品相同的那份冲击与感动。
Why is it that photographers loaded with the most extraordinary gear who use the internet to get the exact GPS coordinates of Jack's or Ansel's photo locations and hike out there with the image in hand to ensure an exact copy (illegal by US copyright laws and common decency), that they get something that might look similar, but lacks all the impact and emotion of the original they thought they copied?
上述所言绝非空穴来风的笑话，大家可以参考以下这个连结，由於天文学家预测，安塞亚当斯於1948年在优美地国家公园所拍摄的作品『秋月』(Autumn Moon)，画面里那月亮与山脉相互辉映的景象，每19年就会重复一次。於是在2005年9月15日那天，将近300位业余摄影玩家浩浩荡荡地从各地出发，在天文学家所预言的位置集结，然而结局却是，他们并没有拍到相同於安塞作品中的云、布满山头的雪景或是月球上的阴影，然而仍有参加该次活动的摄影者说：『除此之外，我想我们已经拍得很像安塞的作品了。』相信安塞亚当斯假设在场听了应该也会瞠目结舌吧！？
I'm not kidding. You can read about a bunch of these turkeys here. They used university astronomers to predict the one time in almost two decades that the conditions would match and had 300 of the clueless converge at just the right spot. They still didn't get the clouds, snow or shadows right. This makes Ansel cringe. Of course they didn't get anything like what they wanted.
他们当然无法拍到他们认为自己可以拍到的影像，由于令人拜服的摄影师来自於能创造鼓舞人心的灵感，而非擅长於仿造他人的作品。
Compelling photographs come from inspiration, not duplication.
为何即使我们都知道，可以利用Photoshop这样的软体，将任何我们认为不好的影像，处理成为一幅幅杰出的作品，却往往在花上几个小时的修制以后，才发现这些经过后制的影像，可能比他们在原始未经处理前的样子还要糟糕？
Why is it that even though everyone knows that Photoshop can be used to take any bad image and turn it into a masterpiece, that even after hours of massaging these images look worse than when one started?
或许一幅影像完全是造就於一个艺术家的眼光、耐心与恒心再加上技术，而非他的器材。
Maybe because it's entirely an artist's eye, patience and skill that makes an image and not his tools. Even Ansel said "The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches behind it."
一台相机捕捉到的是你的想像力，没有了想像力，就没有照片，那只是垃圾。英文『image』(影像)这个字来自於另外一个英文字『imagination』，也就是想像力的意思，而非来自於『lens sharpness』(镜头锐利度)或是『noise levels』(杂讯程度)。大卫拉卡贝尔(David LaChapelle's)的作品完全关乎於他自己的想像力，而非他的照相机。布置出他那些疯狂的摄影场景是最难的部分，一但场景布置完成，任何相机都可以用以作为他的拍照工具，然而假设把大卫所使用的相机交给我，并且给我相同的模特儿，我也无法拍出任何跟他相同的作品。
A camera catches your imagination. No imagination, no photo - just crap. The word "image" comes from the word "imagination." It doesn't come come from "lens sharpness" or "noise levels." David LaChapelle's work is all about his imagination, not his camera. Setting up these crazy shots is the hard part. Once set up, any camera could catch them. Give me David LaChapelle's camera and I won't get anything like he does, even if you give me the same star performers.
我之因此会在我的个人首页上放上那张我与一只大炮镜头的合照，完全是由于这样——我就不用在网页名称上多写一句『这是摄影师的网页』或是『这是一个摄影网站』，那颗大炮镜头能够比文字更明显而快速地表达这个网站的主题，这就是所谓的视觉语言，让我们一眼就可以清楚地看到事情的重点，而事实上我已经好几年没有碰过那只镜头了。
The only reason I have a huge lens in my photo on my home page is so I don't have to say "photographer" or "photography." The lens makes it obvious much quicker than words. That's what visual communication is all about: thinking long and hard to make your point clearly and quickly. I haven't used that huge lens in years.
任何一台照相机，不论多好或是多坏的照相机，都可以被用来创造那些出色的杂志封面、赢得摄影比赛的作品，或是被悬挂在美术馆里面供人参观。不论是照相机或是镜头的品质，都跟摄影作品的内涵深度毫不相关。
Just about any camera, regardless of how good or bad it is, can be used to create outstanding photographs for magazine covers, winning photo contests and hanging in art galleries. The quality of a lens or camera has almost nothing do with the quality of images it can be used to produce.
乔荷马斯的13 x 19” 限定版美国国家历史博物馆系列相片，在曼哈顿的金别克门美术馆以650美元一张贩售，而这些照片是用D70拍的。
Joe Holmes' limited-edition 13 x 19" prints of his American Museum of Natural History series sell at Manhattan's Jen Bekman Gallery for $650 each. They're made on a D70.
有许多展览贩售由Holgas相机所拍出的、价格高昂的照片，但是贩卖者不会告诉我这些作品是用什么相机拍的，由于在这里，全新的Holgas相机一台只要14.95美元(相当於500元台币不到)，你可以欣赏到许多以 Holgas相机拍摄的得奖摄影作品，展出於华盛顿区的可可画廊所举办的『2006历史的双眼- 白宫新闻摄影师协会摄影比赛展。
There are plenty of shows selling shots from Holgas for a lot more money, just that those folks don't tell me about it. Holgas sell for $14.95, brand new, here. You can see an award-winning shot made with a Holga hanging in Washington, D.C.'s Hemicycle Gallery of the Corcoran Museum of Art in their 2006 Eyes of History competition of the White House News Photographers Association here.