Login or register (free and only takes a few minutes) to participate in this question.
You will also have access to many other tools and opportunities designed for those who have language-related jobs
(or are passionate about them). Participation is free and the site has a strict confidentiality policy.
|German to English translations [PRO]|
Art/Literary - Photography/Imaging (& Graphic Arts)
|German term or phrase: Unschärfe in der Tiefe|
|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?
|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.
Selected response from:
Local time: 16:40
|Thanks for the detailed explanations.|
4 KudoZ points were awarded for this answer