KudoZ home » German to English » Photography/Imaging (& Graphic Arts)

Unschärfe in der Tiefe

English translation: out-of-focus areas in the background

Advertisement

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.
GLOSSARY ENTRY (DERIVED FROM QUESTION BELOW)
German term or phrase:Unschärfe in der Tiefe
English translation:out-of-focus areas in the background
Entered by: Craig Meulen
Options:
- Contribute to this entry
- Include in personal glossary

14:07 Jul 10, 2008
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?
Craig Meulen
United Kingdom
Local time: 15:40
out-of-focus areas in the background
Explanation:
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:

Richard Benham
France
Local time: 16:40
Grading comment
Thanks for the detailed explanations.
4 KudoZ points were awarded for this answer

Advertisement


Summary of answers provided
4out-of-focus areas in the background
Richard Benham
2 +2blur in the backgroundcasper
5 -2lack of focus in the depth of field
Helen Shiner
4 -1(The) rear depth of field generally extends to infinity
Paul Cohen
2insufficient depth of field/lack of depth of field
Alison MacG


  

Answers


16 mins   confidence: Answerer confidence 2/5Answerer confidence 2/5 peer agreement (net): +2
blur in the background


Explanation:
Perhaps?

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 17 mins (2008-07-10 14:25:30 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Or even: background blur

casper
Native speaker of: Native in EnglishEnglish
PRO pts in category: 11

Peer comments on this answer (and responses from the answerer)
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
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)

3 hrs   confidence: Answerer confidence 5/5 peer agreement (net): -2
lack of focus in the depth of field


Explanation:
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.


    Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field
    Reference: http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/depth-of-field.ht...
Helen Shiner
United Kingdom
Local time: 15:40
Specializes in field
Native speaker of: Native in EnglishEnglish
PRO pts in category: 43

Peer comments on this answer (and responses from the answerer)
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
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)

1 day6 hrs   confidence: Answerer confidence 2/5Answerer confidence 2/5
insufficient depth of field/lack of depth of field


Explanation:
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...

Alison MacG
United Kingdom
Local time: 15:40
Native speaker of: Native in EnglishEnglish
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)

9 hrs   confidence: Answerer confidence 4/5Answerer confidence 4/5
Unschärfen in der Tiefe
out-of-focus areas in the background


Explanation:
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.

Richard Benham
France
Local time: 16:40
Native speaker of: Native in EnglishEnglish
PRO pts in category: 8
Grading comment
Thanks for the detailed explanations.
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)

12 hrs   confidence: Answerer confidence 4/5Answerer confidence 4/5 peer agreement (net): -1
(The) rear depth of field generally extends to infinity


Explanation:
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"

Paul Cohen
Greenland
Local time: 12:40
Native speaker of: Native in EnglishEnglish
PRO pts in category: 4

Peer comments on this answer (and responses from the answerer)
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: 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.
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)




Return to KudoZ list


KudoZ™ translation help
The KudoZ network provides a framework for translators and others to assist each other with translations or explanations of terms and short phrases.



See also:



Term search
  • All of ProZ.com
  • Term search
  • Jobs
  • Forums
  • Multiple search