# Is it frowned upon....



## UrbexMami (Nov 1, 2012)

If you don't have a professional camera set up?

I have already stated that I am not a photographer. If I capture a good image, I normally put it down to luck. Is there a reliable technique to getting good images? Is there a unspoken code of what you should take pictures of, or is it just what takes your fancy?

I want to be good at this, but can't afford a decent camera, so for the future any posts that I make will be with my camera phone. I don't know how to use editing suites and I haven't a clue when it comes to visual effects.

I am just looking for a general opinion, as I don't want to offend/upset anyone with pictures of things I think are interesting.

Thanks for reading x
UM xx


----------



## krela (Nov 1, 2012)

No not at all, the main requirements are that photos are in focus, and well exposed enough to be able to see what's in the photo.


----------



## UE-OMJ (Nov 1, 2012)

UrbexMami said:


> If you don't have a professional camera set up?



Nope, not one bit.




UrbexMami said:


> Is there a reliable technique to getting good images? Is there a unspoken code of what you should take pictures of, or is it just what takes your fancy?



Thats fairly easy, if it is a derelict PLACE (ie not vehicle) then it is acceptable.


Go for it


----------



## krela (Nov 1, 2012)

The [ame="http://www.derelictplaces.co.uk/main/showthread.php?t=16286"]guide to posting location reports[/ame] has a lot of info.


----------



## UrbexMami (Nov 1, 2012)

Thank you both x I appreciate it. I am always in awe of other people's photo's. I seem to suck at it.


----------



## Stealthstar79 (Nov 1, 2012)

I would love a nice decent camera but like you don't own one.
I use digital point and shoot. I don't know the first thing about photography. 
I do think the location will help decide how well your pics turn out, especially if poor lighting.


----------



## UrbexMami (Nov 1, 2012)

Stealthstar79 said:


> I would love a nice decent camera but like you don't own one.
> I use digital point and shoot. I don't know the first thing about photography.
> I do think the location will help decide how well your pics turn out, especially if poor lighting.



Thank you hun x
I genuinely would have the first idea. If it looks nice or interesting, I snap it. Not quite technical x


----------



## UE-OMJ (Nov 1, 2012)

It's a learning curve - I'm still learning. Dont get too hung up on taking fantastic photos, we are here to document and view derelict places and so as long as you can see them that's all that matters.

Sometimes people make the photos look so stunning that they are no longer a true reflection of the site.


----------



## UrbexMami (Nov 1, 2012)

UE-OMJ said:


> It's a learning curve - I'm still learning. Dont get too hung up on taking fantastic photos, we are here to document and view derelict places and so as long as you can see them that's all that matters.
> 
> Sometimes people make the photos look so stunning that they are no longer a true reflection of the site.



I think it's easy to forget sometimes, that beauty is in everything, whether it's the way nature is reclaiming the materials of the buildings or the history hidden within a building.

Thank you again honey. I appreciate all the input. I fear, as much as I hate to admit it, that UrbexPapi (the hubby) is a better photographer than me.


----------



## tank2020 (Nov 2, 2012)

UrbexMami said:


> If I capture a good image, I normally put it down to luck.



Thats me down to a tee, I have a fairly good camera, but still only probably 1 in 10 of the photos I take I am happy with. Thank god I don't have to pay for film and processing anymore!


----------



## rectory-rat (Nov 2, 2012)

I have a reasonable DSLR camera, but my photos are no better than anyone's that uses a compact digital or a good phone. Just shoot what looks interesting 

~RR


----------



## Bones out (Nov 2, 2012)

rectory-rat said:


> I have a reasonable DSLR camera, but my photos are no better than anyone's that uses a compact digital or a good phone. Just shoot what looks interesting
> 
> ~RR



True words although Mr Rats photos are rather nice 

I have not got a clue about photography, even though I have all the glass and stuff, I cant be bothered to process and know I guess 50% of what my camera can do... You see, its a hobby, exploring the unknown comes first and photography is an add on to show others IMHO....


----------



## daftoldgit (Nov 2, 2012)

I'm not bothered about the photography side of things, it's the subject that interests me.
And I'm glad I'm not the only one using a camera phone!


----------



## mookster (Nov 2, 2012)

Never compare your photographs to others, take photos of what you find interesting and have fun doing it, it's not a competition.


----------



## krela (Nov 2, 2012)

No-one says you have to take photos or post things on the internet if you do take some, enjoy exploring and anything else is a bonus imo.


----------



## UEP-Wales (Nov 2, 2012)

mookster said:


> Never compare your photographs to others, take photos of what you find interesting and have fun doing it, it's not a competition.



Exactly, It's all about exploring our environment, not who has the biggest camera or who can take the better photograph. Enjoy what your doing and when you stop enjoying it, move on to something else!


----------



## The Archivist (Nov 2, 2012)

Technically speaking, a better camera will produce higher quality images, but it won't make you a better photographer - that takes practice, patience and an eye for detail. 

Personally I tend to set rather exacting standards for myself: if I have a photograph which is blurred I don't put it up, I see it as a matter of experience, use it as an excuse for a revisit and try harder next time. 

That said, I think as long as your photographs show the subject matter clearly then there's no problem, we are all learning when it comes to photography and you can only get better. 

If your camera has a mounting socket, consider getting a tripod, experiment and get plenty of practice. Above all, don't be disheartened by small failures; even professional photographers have images which don't turn out right.


----------



## UrbexMami (Nov 2, 2012)

The only photos I have posted were of a graveyard, I got some good detail from the graves but, the shots were mainly to try and document who the graves were for. 

I hope I can splore an abandoned house, so I can really test my eye for beauty x

Thank you all for your input xx


----------



## Arrkon (Nov 6, 2012)

Couldnt agree more with whats already been said. I run a Canon Eos 1D (top end pro camera) and really impressed with the stuff that comes out of point and shoot's nowadays.

There is no real secret to good photos, look at other peoples work to get an idea of things like angles and the like. Im a "semi-pro" photographer, and I too, am in awe at some of the shots posted up.

Overall, it will come with practice


----------



## ObliqueStrategy (Nov 6, 2012)

It's all too easy to get caught up in the belief that better gear equates to better photographs. Better gear simply gives you better choices, it won't make you a better photographer. An iPhone or other smartphone is equally capable of capturing good images in the hands of a good photographer.

My experience on here, while only very short, tells me that good well exposed and framed images that detail the site accurately are preferable to 'arty' shots. Well, that's what I think anyway. But, I must confess, those images that have been captured beautifully by someone with a good camera and equally good technique do live in the memory longer.

If you do decide to get a 'pro' camera, just make sure to protect it well, especially in these unpredictable places we explore. There's something to be said for cheap easily replaceable gear in this type of activity


----------



## flyboys90 (Nov 6, 2012)

Its all about capturing time and sharing it!as long as they are in focus you are on to a winner.Good luck.


----------



## steve2109 (Nov 6, 2012)

I think the way some pictures are processed actually brings out more of the character of the place and helps to show more detail, but i believe that the way a picture looks is down to your own individual taste, what might be amazing to you can be awful to someone else, don't worry about what people think of your pictures it is all about how you feel and what you like, just my 2 pence worth...


----------



## krela (Nov 6, 2012)

ObliqueStrategy said:


> It's all too easy to get caught up in the belief that better gear equates to better photographs. Better gear simply gives you better choices, it won't make you a better photographer. An iPhone or other smartphone is equally capable of capturing good images in the hands of a good photographer.



Except in low light, where iPhones and smartphones are utterly useless in anyone's hands. They simply don't work.



ObliqueStrategy said:


> My experience on here, while only very short, tells me that good well exposed and framed images that detail the site accurately are preferable to 'arty' shots. Well, that's what I think anyway. But, I must confess, those images that have been captured beautifully by someone with a good camera and equally good technique do live in the memory longer.



Indeed, the emphasis here is on the location and the subject of the photographs. Ultimately that is what is important; great photography is nice, but not necessary.



ObliqueStrategy said:


> If you do decide to get a 'pro' camera, just make sure to protect it well, especially in these unpredictable places we explore. There's something to be said for cheap easily replaceable gear in this type of activity



Either that or camera insurance, I've claimed on mine twice in 5 years and it's more than paid for the £7/month it costs me.


----------



## Harry (Nov 6, 2012)

Nope, not at all! The photo's from your only report here are good, look forward to more!


----------



## ObliqueStrategy (Nov 6, 2012)

krela said:


> Except in low light, where iPhones and smartphones are utterly useless in anyone's hands. They simply don't work.



I sort of agree with this. The iPhone, which I use btw, has a good f2.8 lens and can handle reasonably low levels of light quite well. There is of course a threshold, at which point it won't work well. The same is true of compact point and shoots, and of course dslr's. However if you must use a smartphone, there are apps that allow you to get better results akin to using a real camera. Each has their pluses and drawbacks. Of course, it's not a real substitute for a real camera, but the iPhone can deliver cracking results if you're patient and prepared to work at it. But you're right, if you're pushing for time and in low light, it wouldn't be my first choice either. Like all urban exploration, I guess it comes down to good planning and finding a solution that works for you


----------



## Klayton (Nov 13, 2012)

daftoldgit said:


> I'm not bothered about the photography side of things, it's the subject that interests me.
> And I'm glad I'm not the only one using a camera phone!



This is true for me as well. I take photos, but they're very rarely "good" ones. Their only function is to help me remember the place, and maybe to show to others if they're interested.

Taking a lot of photos does increase the chances of getting a few good ones. But then I feel like if I'm snapping away the whole time I'm not really experiencing the thing itself.


----------



## chaoticreason (Nov 13, 2012)

You do not need an expensive camera to take good photos,just imagination.
This is not a photog forum,but a site where we experince other peoples percerption of the places they have visited.
My shots are all crap photographically speaking,but I hope to imbue the viiewer with a modicum of that which I felt at the site,place,etc.


----------



## Pen15 (Nov 13, 2012)

Hello UrbexMami,

I would just like back up the comments made by all the good folks and friends I have on this site.

I am a professional photographer with over 20 years under my belt. I would like to state that when I look at other folk's images I look at the picture content, not the standard that the author has. It doesn't interest me in the slightest if an image is taken on a cell phone or a top of the range Nikon or Canon. I think I can safely say that the majority of people see this too. 

My understanding is that Derelict Places is a forum about "Derelict Places". It is for those who have "quirky hobbies" as one of my friend’s points out. I can understand the purest, saying that enhancement takes away the true vision and find. I can agree with the above statements made. It is all about what you see and whether you put that down in your own way shouldn't matter. The main thing is enjoy what you do, don't be put off by other stuff you see. I am very guilty of playing with images as most on here will know. I tend to interpret what I see myself. My main reason is to show that place as I see it. After all that is the sole purpose here, which is to enjoy one another’s finds.

I hope you keep going at it and grow stronger with all the great words of encouragement from your friends here


----------



## UrbexMami (Nov 14, 2012)

Thank you all so much for your input. I truly appreciate it. Your words of advice have really helped.
We are still planning on exploring the old Munitions bunkers near us, so hoping to test my "skills" then.
Thank you all again x


----------

