Glossary entry (derived from question below)
German term or phrase:
Unschärfe in der Tiefe
English translation:
out-of-focus areas in the background
Added to glossary by
Craig Meulen
Jul 10, 2008 14:07
16 yrs ago
1 viewer *
German term
United Kingdom
Unschärfe in der Tiefe
German to English
Art/Literary
Photography/Imaging (& Graphic Arts)
This is a style manual for photoshoots of a company's products. In the section "Bildsprache" it details how the product photos are to be taken. Amongst other thing it instructs how to light the product, that the full item should be visible (not clipped) etc.
The second point is causing me problems:
- Auf Unschärfen in der Tiefe wird generell verzichtet.
How should this be translated?
The second point is causing me problems:
- Auf Unschärfen in der Tiefe wird generell verzichtet.
How should this be translated?
Proposed translations
(English)
Proposed translations
9 hrs
Richard Benham
France
France
Native in English
France
When quality counts
Native in: English 
Works in: German to English, French to English, English
Related KudoZ points
:
8
German term (edited):
Unschärfen in der Tiefe
Selected
out-of-focus areas in the background
I am not entirely happy with this, but has to be better than anything to do with "blur" (which is generally due to movement) or "depth of field" (which misses the point).
This is about product shots, i.e. studio shots in which everything is under control. So there would be no reason for anything to be moving. Similarly, the depth of field would be under control too, since it depends essentially on the focal length of the lens, the distance, and the aperture. Sometimes photographers deliberately use a shallow depth of field, to "lose" the bars on a cage (so you can take a photograph of a lion in the zoo and nobody need know there were bars between you and Leo), or to "focus attention" on the subject, e.g. to single out one person in a crowd, or in this case to show the product in a "typical" setting while making sure that it is the product you are looking at. This instruction basically says don't use that technique.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 day23 hrs (2008-07-12 13:50:38 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
In view of a lot of nonsense being talked about "depth of field" and "infinity", let me make a few clarifications.
Only one plane can be in focus. Points out of this plane are more or less out of focus. The extent to which they are out of focus varies as a function of such things as the focal length of the lens, the distance, and the aperture. The term "depth of field" refers to the range of distances over which the out-of-focus effect will be "acceptably" low. Depth of field is greater with shorter-focal-length lenses, greater distance from the lens, and smaller aperture.
Most lenses will have a depth-of-field guide in the form of lines marked with f-stops on the lens. These will be on either side of the mark that shows the distance that is actually in focus. So, if you want to take a picture of a landscape, you could set the aperture to f/16 say, and line the "16" line up with the infinity mark, and then everything from the other "16" mark to infinity will be "acceptably" close to being in focus.
This is fine for landscapes, but why would you do it for a product shot? You will almost certainly have some kind of background about 2 or 3 metres away from your objective lens; so why would you even care whether points 50 metres or 50 kilometres away would be in focus (or close enough to it)? It's absurd!
In a studio setting, photographing non-moving objects, you can do just about anything you damnwell like with depth of field. You can set the aperture as small or as large as you like, and adjust the lighting and exposure time accordingly. If you use a view camera, you can even have an in-focus plane that is not parallel with the film plane (or the front of your camera. You would certainly not resort to the rough-and-ready techniques of landscape photography, and you have no reason to give a rat's arse whether points "at infinity" are in focus or not, because they are a long way outside your studio.
This is about product shots, i.e. studio shots in which everything is under control. So there would be no reason for anything to be moving. Similarly, the depth of field would be under control too, since it depends essentially on the focal length of the lens, the distance, and the aperture. Sometimes photographers deliberately use a shallow depth of field, to "lose" the bars on a cage (so you can take a photograph of a lion in the zoo and nobody need know there were bars between you and Leo), or to "focus attention" on the subject, e.g. to single out one person in a crowd, or in this case to show the product in a "typical" setting while making sure that it is the product you are looking at. This instruction basically says don't use that technique.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 day23 hrs (2008-07-12 13:50:38 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
In view of a lot of nonsense being talked about "depth of field" and "infinity", let me make a few clarifications.
Only one plane can be in focus. Points out of this plane are more or less out of focus. The extent to which they are out of focus varies as a function of such things as the focal length of the lens, the distance, and the aperture. The term "depth of field" refers to the range of distances over which the out-of-focus effect will be "acceptably" low. Depth of field is greater with shorter-focal-length lenses, greater distance from the lens, and smaller aperture.
Most lenses will have a depth-of-field guide in the form of lines marked with f-stops on the lens. These will be on either side of the mark that shows the distance that is actually in focus. So, if you want to take a picture of a landscape, you could set the aperture to f/16 say, and line the "16" line up with the infinity mark, and then everything from the other "16" mark to infinity will be "acceptably" close to being in focus.
This is fine for landscapes, but why would you do it for a product shot? You will almost certainly have some kind of background about 2 or 3 metres away from your objective lens; so why would you even care whether points 50 metres or 50 kilometres away would be in focus (or close enough to it)? It's absurd!
In a studio setting, photographing non-moving objects, you can do just about anything you damnwell like with depth of field. You can set the aperture as small or as large as you like, and adjust the lighting and exposure time accordingly. If you use a view camera, you can even have an in-focus plane that is not parallel with the film plane (or the front of your camera. You would certainly not resort to the rough-and-ready techniques of landscape photography, and you have no reason to give a rat's arse whether points "at infinity" are in focus or not, because they are a long way outside your studio.
4 KudoZ points awarded for this answer.
Comment: "Thanks for the detailed explanations."
+2
16 mins
blur in the background
Perhaps?
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 17 mins (2008-07-10 14:25:30 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Or even: background blur
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 17 mins (2008-07-10 14:25:30 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Or even: background blur
Peer comment(s):
| agree |
Christian Schneider
: z.B. "blurred backgrounds should be avoided"
13 mins
|
|
Thank you for improving on my suggestion, Christian
|
|
| agree |
Amphyon
: with christian
20 mins
|
|
Thanks, Amphyon
|
|
| neutral |
Ken Cox
: also with Christian
41 mins
|
|
Thanks, Ken. I am also with Christian ;-)
|
|
| neutral |
Richard Benham
: I have been out of photography for a long time, but to me "blur" suggests unclarity due to movement, whereas what we have here is lack of focus.//How would that help?
9 hrs
|
|
Thank you, Richard. You may like to google for "out-of-focus blur", perhaps?//Oh, all I was trying to point out was that a blur can *also* occur due to lack of focus
|
-2
3 hrs
Helen Shiner
France
France
Native in English
Specializes in field
France
Arts/Academic translator - Art historian
Native in: English
Works in: German to English, French to English
Related KudoZ points
:
43
lack of focus in the depth of field
Photographers usually refer to the depth of field which can be adjusted so that all parts of the picture, foreground and background are sharp, or otherwise.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 18 hrs (2008-07-11 08:33:58 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Agree I have worded this wrong - no doubt done in too much of a rush, but I hope my links have led to some clarity for the asker, at least.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 18 hrs (2008-07-11 08:33:58 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Agree I have worded this wrong - no doubt done in too much of a rush, but I hope my links have led to some clarity for the asker, at least.
Reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/depth-of-field.htm
Peer comment(s):
| disagree |
Richard Benham
: Sorry, but this doesn't make any sense.
5 hrs
|
| disagree |
Paul Cohen
: Depth of field is, by definition, an area within a photo that is in focus. There can thus be no LACK of focus IN the depth of field.
8 hrs
|
1 day 6 hrs
Alison MacG
United Kingdom
United Kingdom
Native in English
United Kingdom
Patents and related material specialist
Native in: English (Variants: British, Scottish, UK)
Works in: German to English, French to English, Swedish to English, and 4 more.
insufficient depth of field/lack of depth of field
I found these terms given as the definition for Tiefenunschärfe in an admittedly very old dictionary in the British Library today.
Four-Language Dictionary of Photography and Cinematography - R. Schreyer, S. Maurer, F.W. Wolter
It's from 1961 and so too old to have an ISBN No.
Both terms do get lots of hits though, e.g.
Depth of field is the zone, either side of the plane of focus that is acceptably sharp. Thus if you focus on a group of people and those on the front row are sharp but the second and third rows are blurred then you have insufficient depth of field.
http://www.swpp.co.uk/professional_imagemaker/depth-1.htm
Many shots, when taken close up, tend to be blurry in areas, or at the very least, not as crystal clear as the object in the center. This is due to a lack of depth of field.
http://www.pixagogo.com/tutorials/digitalphotography/Tutoria...
Four-Language Dictionary of Photography and Cinematography - R. Schreyer, S. Maurer, F.W. Wolter
It's from 1961 and so too old to have an ISBN No.
Both terms do get lots of hits though, e.g.
Depth of field is the zone, either side of the plane of focus that is acceptably sharp. Thus if you focus on a group of people and those on the front row are sharp but the second and third rows are blurred then you have insufficient depth of field.
http://www.swpp.co.uk/professional_imagemaker/depth-1.htm
Many shots, when taken close up, tend to be blurry in areas, or at the very least, not as crystal clear as the object in the center. This is due to a lack of depth of field.
http://www.pixagogo.com/tutorials/digitalphotography/Tutoria...
-1
12 hrs
Paul Cohen
Greenland
Greenland
Native in English
Greenland
Will work for blubber
Native in: English
Works in: German to English, French to English, Danish to English
Related KudoZ points
:
4
(The) rear depth of field generally extends to infinity
I agree with Richard's interpretation in his answer and his remarks on the word "blur" but I'm also not entirely happy with "out-of-focus areas in the background" and I don't agree that depth of field "entirely misses the point".
Why not turn it around and talk about the extent of rear depth of field? That would be the kind of language that your target audience would expect.
Rear depth of field is the distance behind the object that will be acceptably sharp in the photograph.
http://www.dofmaster.com/dof_imagesize.html
It is convenient to think of a rear depth of field and a front depth of field. The rear depth of field is the distance from the subject to the farthest point that is sharp and the front depth of field is the distance from the closest point that is sharp to the subject. (Here we assume the lens is focused on the subject.) Sometimes the term depth of field is used for the combination of these two, i.e. the distance from the closest point that is sharp to the farthest point that is sharp.
http://graflex.org/lenses/lens-faq.html
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 day23 hrs (2008-07-12 13:51:33 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Alternatively, you could write "rear depth of field generally extends to the background"
Why not turn it around and talk about the extent of rear depth of field? That would be the kind of language that your target audience would expect.
Rear depth of field is the distance behind the object that will be acceptably sharp in the photograph.
http://www.dofmaster.com/dof_imagesize.html
It is convenient to think of a rear depth of field and a front depth of field. The rear depth of field is the distance from the subject to the farthest point that is sharp and the front depth of field is the distance from the closest point that is sharp to the subject. (Here we assume the lens is focused on the subject.) Sometimes the term depth of field is used for the combination of these two, i.e. the distance from the closest point that is sharp to the farthest point that is sharp.
http://graflex.org/lenses/lens-faq.html
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 day23 hrs (2008-07-12 13:51:33 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Alternatively, you could write "rear depth of field generally extends to the background"
Peer comment(s):
| disagree |
Richard Benham
: We are talking about studio shots here. There is no need for depth of field to extend to infinity or anywhere near it. [...]//Duh?? Focussing to infinity is simply not relevant to product shots: it's for landscapes or the moon etc.
36 mins
|
|
"Infinity" means a maximum distance, i.e., everything in the background is in focus. // The depth of field (i.e., the area in focus) extends to the background of the photo.
|
|
| neutral |
casper (X)
: RU suggesting that in order2avoid "Unschärfe in der Tiefe",1needs2extend the rear depth of field to infinity?//That wouldBstretching things beyond the scope of translation,I'm afraid,Paul.Remember the Faustregel: “So frei wie nötig, so treu wie möglich”?
1 hr
|
|
Please see my comment to Richard. // Yes, Chetan, if the rear depth of field extends to infinity, everything in the background of the photo will be in focus.
|
Something went wrong...