Somewhere in the woods was this house, completely engulfed by nature. We had to go up to the house to actually make sure it was there such was its invisibility from the front. 

Late in the day after multiple locations we arrived as dark fell and thus it was a case of dashing around the pitch black interior trying to get a few images. I haven't really done this house justice so a return wouldn't be ruled out if in the area in more natural daylight. However it was a nice end to the day even to get a few images from here.

The house belonged to the Clementines once upon a time. Beyond this I don't know much as there wasn't really time to read through anything which would have been pointless anyway as my Dutch/French/Flemish is non existent, something I must rectify if more trips are to be planned. 

A nice collection of postcards and letters were scattered all over the floors so were gathered up and allowed to fill the frame. Here is the dilemma in this photography. Do I leave the postcards and letters scattered all over the floor 'as found' and try to photograph them? Some would say that's the true reflection of how the house was found when I entered. However, I do agree to some extent on this point, to leave things as they are found and try to capture a location as it is. Yet in some instances this just doesn't work well in being able to document what is there. To photograph them as they were would have required multiple images to cover their location on the floors and wouldn't have made for nice photographs, especially as the hallway where they were was so dark. In this instance I think it was acceptable to gather them up and document a whole set of them in one frame. The essence of the house - how it was found - was still photographed as it was when we walked in through the battered door. An argument regarding this will rumble on I guess but it does bring nto focus the many dillemas faced when documenting abandoned buildings.