Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Food Bloggers Giving Restaurant Owners Heartburn

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the pics-or-it-didn't-happen dept.

Social Networks 311

crimeandpunishment writes "Call it the invasion of the pasta paparazzi. Food bloggers are so excited about sharing their experiences, especially at trendy, popular restaurants, that they're too busy taking pictures and video to enjoy the food when it's at its best. Many signature dishes come out at the perfect temperature ... take a few minutes to capture what it looks like, and your palate won't be nearly as pleased. Some restaurants have taken the step of banning cameras, or at least have established a 'no flash' rule. Others just want to make sure enthusiastic reviewers are still enthused after eating their food."

cancel ×

311 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

And once again (2, Insightful)

Cheezymadman (1083175) | more than 4 years ago | (#32309316)

People fail to realize that the point of food is to enjoy the taste. It doesn't matter how it looks, as long as it tastes good.

Re:And once again (5, Insightful)

DarkKnightRadick (268025) | more than 4 years ago | (#32309352)

Actually how it looks is just as important as taste and smell. When you eat a meal, the first part of your body that perceives the meal is your eyes. Most people will not eat food that looks unappetizing. Next is your nose (which strongly correlates with your taste buds). Many more people will not eat food that smells unappetizing. Only then does taste play a role. Almost no one will eat food that tastes unappetizing.

Want citations? Look 'em up yourself.

Re:And once again (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32309450)

Mmmmm, my favorite is a dish that draws me to it in such haste -- an appetizer of mammal shit patty garnished with blades of grass. When simply braised in hot sunlight, fresh mammal shit is slickety smooth and richly unctuous.

To be corralled into a more solid patty, it may be mixed with corn kernels, maintaining its basic flavor, if not its ethereal texture. It's topped with a large drizzle of intestinal mucus and surrounded by small pieces of chewy-tender cellulose. Mammal shit is usually brown or green. The brown version here is fiber-based, mellow and earthy. As I guessed, this version of the dish is about to go off-menu; the chef feels that the corn kernels and plant matter deserves to star in their own dish, not serve as support. (I agree!) The mammal shit will be revised soon, the corn and grass returning later in a purer guise.

-- Another fine dinner as reviewed by a hungry, hungry housefly

Re:And once again (1)

jjoelc (1589361) | more than 4 years ago | (#32309486)

I think it depends on expectations. Most of the time, I could care less what the food looks like. Presentation plays absolutely no role in 99% of the food I eat. If things like atmosphere and occasion are the primary reasons I am eating.. then sure, make it look pretty.

Also, a minor quibble, but you generally can smell food (cooking or being served) long before being able to see the food. Ever been walking through the mall and smelled the cinnabon? From 10 stores away?

Of course, the sight and smell are reasons I can't stand any kind of seafood, long before the taste hits my palate and informs me I should have known better than to believe the jackass who swears that this kind of fish, cooked in this particular way doesn't taste fishy...

Re:And once again (3, Insightful)

nextekcarl (1402899) | more than 4 years ago | (#32309650)

I have no sense of smell, you insensitive clod! *

*That's not a joke.

Re:And once again (3, Funny)

onionman (975962) | more than 4 years ago | (#32310316)

I have no sense of smell, you insensitive clod! *

*That's not a joke.

Why is this modded "Troll"? I know someone with no sense of smell, and it seems to be a minor handicap.

I've also met far too many people with no sense of taste!

Re:And once again (2, Informative)

DarkKnightRadick (268025) | more than 4 years ago | (#32309806)

I think you'd be surprised just how much your sense of sight plays in your food choices. Most of it isn't even a conscious choice.

You are right, smell does sense further than sight most of the time. But in a restaurant with competing smells, it's only when you can see what you are supposed to be smelling (your own food) that it gets heightened and "zeros in" on your own food.

Not sure why you dislike seafood so much, but to each their own. (: I have yet to come across a food that I didn't like (or at least try once).

Re:And once again (2, Informative)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 4 years ago | (#32310370)

Grouper (the real stuff) doesn't taste fishy if it's not old.

Raw tuna (preferably sushi/sashimi grade...) doesn't taste anything like fish, surprisingly. Salmon is nasty, though. I haven't tried any others.

It really is true, not all fish prepared right tastes fishy.

Re:And once again (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 4 years ago | (#32310390)

... I should mention I can't eat anything remotely fishy. Makes me heave.

Oddly, Calamari is not among those things.

Re:And once again (4, Informative)

skine (1524819) | more than 4 years ago | (#32309558)

Most people will not eat food that looks unappetizing.

Obviously you're not from Rochester, NY. Our best known local dish not only looks ugly, but it has an ugly name as well. Then again, Nick Tahou's makes some delicious Garbage Plates.

Re:And once again (1)

wwfarch (1451799) | more than 4 years ago | (#32309718)

And they're amazingly good. I grab one every time I head back to Rochester to visit my family.

Re:And once again (1)

DarkKnightRadick (268025) | more than 4 years ago | (#32309810)

I'm not necessarily talking about presentation.

Re:And once again (1)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 4 years ago | (#32310178)

Uh.. Just because it's not "dressed up" doesn't mean it's not ugly. Fancy restaurants might go overboard on the presentation, but the picture on wikipedia doesn't look any more unappetizing than any chili & sausage combo. I.e. heartburn on a plate, which is a bit of a mixed bag, really. Frankly, it's appearance is most reminiscent of your typical pot-luck dinner after you've walked through the buffet line.

Now, I'm sure Natto and Corn Smut are delicious, but I dare you to attempt to eat either one of them after just taking a look at them. "garbage plate" doesn't even make the list of unappetizing presentations.

Re:And once again (1)

timothy (36799) | more than 4 years ago | (#32310300)

Have never been there, but this is one reason I want to. My sister-in-law is from not too far, and talked about these things. Looks like a fantastic snack :) Enough food to get through a movie or book, even ...

Tim

Re:And once again (2, Funny)

NotQuiteReal (608241) | more than 4 years ago | (#32309790)

So, nothing looks good to the blind... how sad.

And, to add insult to injury, it is not "polite" to use the braille method to "see" your food.

Re:And once again (2, Insightful)

thrawn_aj (1073100) | more than 4 years ago | (#32309926)

It should be, "It doesn't matter how it looks, if it doesn't taste good". If it does taste good, better looks will enhance the taste (for the reasons you mentioned). But (unless you're a food snob), a shitty tasting dish will not taste better just because it's all dressed up (sort of like the deeply disturbed troll who also replied to GP o.O).

Re:And once again (1, Troll)

jo42 (227475) | more than 4 years ago | (#32309956)

Most people will not eat food that looks unappetizing. Next is your nose (which strongly correlates with your taste buds). Many more people will not eat food that smells unappetizing.

That absolutely does not explain ethnic cooking that billions of people eat every day that smells like the back end of a garbage dump in the middle of a hot day in July.

Re:And once again (3, Interesting)

Shadow of Eternity (795165) | more than 4 years ago | (#32310324)

Have you ever been to the middle or far east? There's a whole lot of amazingly delicious foods that look, and sometimes smell, roughly like someone has already eaten them.

Re:And once again (4, Insightful)

FoolishOwl (1698506) | more than 4 years ago | (#32309468)

No, the point of food is to maintain health and strength. Whether you enjoy eating it is secondary to that.

Re:And once again (4, Insightful)

T Murphy (1054674) | more than 4 years ago | (#32309564)

There's food the basic resource, and food the product of the art of cooking. If you are going out to a restaurant, you are paying for the latter kind of food. In developed countries, your definition rarely applies, as shown by many people choosing food for taste and ignoring the health part.

Re:And once again (3, Insightful)

FoolishOwl (1698506) | more than 4 years ago | (#32309646)

To be honest, I keep flirting with taking a contrarian position, and insisting that people should stop worrying about whether food tastes good, much less whether it looks good. There seem to be so many problems with people eating unhealthy food, or eating too much food, and wasting food, and so on, that I sometimes wish people would just take a utilitarian attitude towards food.

Re:And once again (4, Interesting)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 4 years ago | (#32310248)

I dunno. Healthy foods can taste *really* good, and look good too, with their vibrant colors. Unhealthy food only really tastes comfortable, and of course there's the slight bump from the fats and sugars that were once scanty in our pre-civilization diet.

It's also more expensive, though, which I think is the real problem. An overdone ground-beef patty, mayonnaise, some wilty lettuce and a slice of partially hydrogenated vegetable oils with some fat-soaked potato slices and tomato & corn syrup preserves on the side is not only cheap to produce, but the ingredients store well for long periods unrefrigerated.

I'm not convinced "taxing it" is the answer either, as then this comfortable, unhealthy mix will be unavailable to the poor, but they won't magically be able to afford healthy food as a result...

Re:And once again (1)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 4 years ago | (#32309610)

No, the point of food is to maintain health and strength. Whether you enjoy eating it is secondary to that.

Back when humans were picking berries and hunting for a living, yes. But nowdays it's the other way around -- ask any 400-pound fatass who routinely chooses Big Macs over the bean salad.

Re:And once again (3, Insightful)

Twinbee (767046) | more than 4 years ago | (#32309632)

Somehow I think the hunter gatherers would prefer the big macs too.

Re:And once again (1)

bmo (77928) | more than 4 years ago | (#32309662)

"chooses Big Macs over the bean salad."

McDonald's has bean salad?

Woah.

--
BMO

Re:And once again (1)

rfuilrez (1213562) | more than 4 years ago | (#32310114)

Maybe his choice happened before he left the house? Or sent his mom to go get it for him I mean....

Re:And once again (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32310200)

Going to McDonalds for a salad is like going to a prostitute for a hug.

Re:And once again (1)

bmo (77928) | more than 4 years ago | (#32309698)

Food puritanism is just as offensive as religious puritanism.

And the veggies ain't done unless you've added the salt pork, old world style.

--
BMO

Re:And once again (2, Interesting)

FoolishOwl (1698506) | more than 4 years ago | (#32309858)

It's not so much food puritanism, on my part, anyway. It's that I think food is intrinsically uninteresting, and I'd rather we got cooking and eating done quickly so we can talk about or do things that are actually interesting. There are simple, nutritious foods that taste good; spending more time on preparing food to trick it up into something more elaborate seems to me to be a waste of time.

Re:And once again (5, Insightful)

bmo (77928) | more than 4 years ago | (#32310084)

You are obviously someone who has never had a good meal in his life.

Where is this epicurean desert that you live in that I can avoid it?

Given the choice between some good labor intensive peasant food (I'm Polish) and "utilitarian food," I'm going to be loading the plate up with some pierogis thanks.

Saying that eating should only be for nutrition is like saying sex should only be for reproduction. I reject your outlook. It is without enjoyment. It is spartan for the sole reason of utility. It is a dour, rainy day in late November.

--
BMO

Re:And once again (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32310272)

I thought epicurean was: "Devoted to the pursuit of sensual pleasure, especially to the enjoyment of good food and comfort." An epicurean desert would have desserts. Now, granted, that's not quite the philosophy of Epicurus, but that's how the word is used lately.

Re:And once again (2, Funny)

bsane (148894) | more than 4 years ago | (#32310182)

I think food is intrinsically uninteresting

I'm assuming you're Dutch...

Re:And once again (0)

skine (1524819) | more than 4 years ago | (#32309488)

My issue is more that it's simply inappropriate to take pictures in restaurants fancier than IHOP (excepting special occasions, of course).

This is especially true in restaurants that are worthy of reviewing.

Re:And once again (1)

sjwt (161428) | more than 4 years ago | (#32310096)

How could it be inappropriate, when we have some of these super fancy restaurants running friggin game shows? I understand not using flash photography, a decent lens will get you around that, and if you are eating at a ''fancier'' place you should be able to afford one.

As to your second point, all restaurants are worthy of reviewing, the point of reviewing is not to look at places where the foods costs more then some people earn in a week, it is to scale the value, quality, cost and service into a meaningful form that is useful to others who can compare it.

I have in my life only been to 5 rather expensive places to eat (no super expensive places), only two of those rated a returned visit. I have 4 places in my own list of sheep places that rank higher then 3 of those expensive places.

Re:And once again (4, Interesting)

Trailwalker (648636) | more than 4 years ago | (#32309654)

While on one of my long distance hikes, I would occasionally pass a country store and purchase a 24 oz can of a never before heard of brand of beef stew. I would pour this into my pot, add a cup of minute rice and some beef bouillon and top with a cup of water. Heated, this made a quart and a half of murky grayish brown gruel. It was a real treat and the pot was licked clean.

At home, I can not even look at a plate of this concoction, much less eat it.

Nothing like the ambiance of the mountains, day after day of dehydrated crud for food to make anything different a tasty feast fit for the gods.

Re:And once again (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 4 years ago | (#32309966)

Tasting good is probably a step up from the usual long distance food. I remember a few lines from a nature show I watched about a guy who spent 365 days traveling the arctic cap. It was something like "For every day I get a northern pike so I don't have to eat porridge, I thank the lord. But every time I get a trout, I thank the lord it's not a northern pike." Oddly enough I've found some extremely good camping food produced by DryTech, apparently they also deliver the Norwegian field rations. Freeze dried, just add fresh water and boil for a few minutes on a gas burner and you have a really good hot meal. They're hardly cheap though, but extremely practical at 150 grams/package.

Re:And once again (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32309656)

The point of food is to provide nourishment. It could taste and look like shit, the point is to keep you alive

Re:And once again (1)

timothy (36799) | more than 4 years ago | (#32310306)

The point of food is to provide nourishment. It could taste and look like shit, the point is to keep you alive

Is that what the mushrooms told you? Did it wear off eventually?

Re:And once again (2, Insightful)

GWBasic (900357) | more than 4 years ago | (#32309746)

People fail to realize that the point of food is to enjoy the taste. It doesn't matter how it looks, as long as it tastes good.

Well, that might be if you're going to a cafeteria or buying packaged food. At elite gourmet restaurants, it's a combination of taste, appearance, and atmosphere. Seriously, would you want to eat a "gourmet" meal served under harsh florescent lighting that looked ugly?

Perfect temperature (0, Flamebait)

Mononoke (88668) | more than 4 years ago | (#32309338)

Many signature dishes come out at the perfect temperature

No they don't. Get over yourselves.

Re:Perfect temperature (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32309372)

True. This is a load of gibberish. When you have a table of 4, with 4 different entrees, do you really think the chef/cook/etc got it perfectly right so as to have all 4 entrees (and sides) done at the perfect temperature simultaneously? Really?

No, three of them sat under a heat lamp for a minute, two, or five, while the last entree (and accompaniments) were getting finished.

Writer has never worked in a restaurant kitchen.

Re:Perfect temperature (5, Insightful)

techno-vampire (666512) | more than 4 years ago | (#32309708)

Writer has never worked in a restaurant kitchen.

Obviously. First, a good restaurant chef will time things so that they get done as close to each other as possible. Second, some of the dishes will come off of the stove or out of the oven a bit hotter than the perfect temperature and need a minute or two to cool down; generally, those are plated first, so that by the time everything else is done, they're Just Right.

Re:Perfect temperature (1)

ozbird (127571) | more than 4 years ago | (#32309948)

The obvious solution is to have blogging and non-blogging sections of the restaurant, and adjust the food temperatures accordingly. I'd much rather my food come out too warm and need to cool a little that "perfect": eating at a fine restaurant is generally done with company, and talking is often the real main course. "Shut up, and eat it before it gets cold" is what I'd expect from my mother, not a fine restaurant.

Re:Perfect temperature (0)

sjwt (161428) | more than 4 years ago | (#32310158)

And herein lies the 'myth' of 'resting' a steak. Fuck I hate places that serve an apparently 'rested' stake, which is just a bad cover up for a cold stake.

Re:Perfect temperature (3, Insightful)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 4 years ago | (#32310304)

Look, if you think $12 a plate (e.g. Applebees) is high end, you're not going to the kind of restaurant where timing is critical (although applebees does still make an attempt to come out at the same time...). Not coincidentally, you're also not going to the kind of restaurant where people would consider taking a picture of the food.

Re:Perfect temperature (4, Interesting)

T Murphy (1054674) | more than 4 years ago | (#32309404)

RTFA:

Take the diner who recently ordered a signature dish, Hot Potato-Cold Potato, in which a marble-sized sphere of piping hot Yukon Gold is dropped into a bowl of 40-degree potato soup at the pull of a pin. Eating it at the proper temperature is key to the experience.

Desserts with something fresh out of the oven and ice cream on top are similar- wait even 5 minutes and the melting ice cream hurts the taste and texture noticeably. Now, if they were talking about typical dishes without built-in temperature differences, I might agree with you.

Re:Perfect temperature (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32309618)

Snobs who eat things like the above mentioned dish and call it "an experience" are assholes and the world would probably be a better place if they didn't have a blog.

Re:Perfect temperature (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32309872)

Snobs who eat things like the above mentioned dish and call it "an experience" are assholes and the world would probably be a better place if they didn't have a pulse.

Fixt.

Re:Perfect temperature (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32309418)

You're right.
Even Italian dishes like risotto and pasta (which if properly cooked, come out at the right state of doneness (al dente) and are served immediately) don't suffer too much if left out a few minutes. It's only when they've been allowed to cool for more than 7-10 minutes that they start to be suboptimal.

The problem is with those crazy food bloggers who take more than 10 minutes to frame a shot with their tripods etc. Most food bloggers I know spend 1-2 minutes per 20 pictures or so.

Re:Perfect temperature (3, Insightful)

Arker (91948) | more than 4 years ago | (#32309432)

Even if they did, they are expected to hold their taste long enough for them to be, you know, eaten?

Which, if you do it right, can take some time. Divide into bite-sized portions, not too big, convey to mouth, chew *thoroughly*, then and only then swallow. Then take a sip of your drink, probably engage in conversation for a minute, before repeating.

If taking a minute at the beginning of the meal to take pictures degrades the taste, then the taste will be degraded horribly by the time the diner finishes the plate. And people who take a moment to close their eyes and thank $deity for their food would be ruining it too. It's a bunch of nonsense.

Flash photography can be distracting and annoying, however.

Re:Perfect temperature (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32309490)

I always though geeks were into cooking? First impressions matter. The first bite cements a flavor memory, that sticks with you as your food cools. Miss the window of opportunity and a great dish just becomes good or even meh. This is also why good food is generally served in small portions. Its like your first sip of coffee in the morning, if you waited tell it was cold or left it in the pot to burn you might just spit it out. But if you had a few drinks before waiting tell its past its prime you might just finish off that last gulp or two without any problem. Same thing.

Re:Perfect temperature (2, Informative)

wjc_25 (1686272) | more than 4 years ago | (#32309606)

RTFA. Setting up and using a tripod takes more than a minute. The problem isn't just clicking a button on a cell camera - the problem is setting up equipment to get the "perfect shot" of the food at the expense of actually enjoying it.

Re:Perfect temperature (1)

CheshireCatCO (185193) | more than 4 years ago | (#32309748)

Anyone setting up a tripod gets what they deserve, although I don't see why it causes the food to be colder. It's not like you can't have the tripod ready to go before the food shows up. (And tripods are really what's slowing people down, then banning flashes is the opposite of what you want to do. Ban the tripods instead, they're probably a menace to navigation between tables anyway.)

Frankly the whole article smells of creating journalism out of a weak, rare concern. I've never noticed anyone else taking pictures of their food in a restaurant, which suggests that few people are really doing it, or that most of them are quick and discrete.

U live in co? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32310094)

Not exactly a food Mecca. Ate at the publican tonight in Chicago... At least 2 ppl brought nice cameras Into the joint. It hAppens a lot. Moto has it even worse as does any molecular gAstronomy joint.

Re:Perfect temperature (1)

Message (303377) | more than 4 years ago | (#32309616)

That explains why all those gourmet meals have such small portions! You have to eat it quickly.

Re:Perfect temperature (3, Funny)

drsmithy (35869) | more than 4 years ago | (#32309766)

If taking a minute at the beginning of the meal to take pictures degrades the taste, then the taste will be degraded horribly by the time the diner finishes the plate.

The thing is, in restaurants expensive enough to be visited by people who review food, you barely get more than a few bites worth of food on your plate to start with.

Re:Perfect temperature (5, Funny)

discord5 (798235) | more than 4 years ago | (#32309446)

Many signature dishes come out at the perfect temperature

No they don't. Get over yourselves.

You sir, obviously haven't experienced the finer art of cooking. Last week I made a lasagna that needed to be served at the perfect temperature in order to be optimally satisfying. It needed to be so hot that it would scorch the taste buds right off of your tongue, or else you would be unable to stand the taste.

DE-LI-CIOUS! Hmmm. Nothing beats homemade cooking.

Re:Perfect temperature (1)

ChipMonk (711367) | more than 4 years ago | (#32309752)

Parent is modded funny (and I think that was discord5's intention), but some people like myself have a low threshold of heat pain. I've taken crotch shots, broken bones, and blinding headaches, and come away mostly none the worse for wear. Anything above 115 deg F, however, is too hot for me to touch, let alone eat, and I reflexively recoil from it. "Fresh off the grill" is best served on room-temperature bread, with recently refrigerated condiments. And as much as I like Mexican food (well, most any food, ethnic or otherwise), the typical Mexican restaurant chicken fajita has to sit at least 5 minutes before I can even consider taking a bite.

WRT TFA, that's plenty of time to set up a camera and tripod. I'm not going to complain, if I eat food that is at a temperature the cook/chef isn't hot enough. I know my taste buds, and general tastes, better than the cook does.

Re:Perfect temperature (1)

sjwt (161428) | more than 4 years ago | (#32310132)

Same hear, I call this the "not killing your mouth and taste buds with scalding hot coffee day in and out efect"

Re:Perfect temperature (1)

FoolishOwl (1698506) | more than 4 years ago | (#32309524)

In fairness, the article cited a particular dish, called "Hot Potato-Cold Potato," for which the temperature was critical.

However, I can't imagine this being an issue at any restaurant that I've ever eaten. The perfect temperature? Customers taking twenty photos of their meal? Who are these people, and what is wrong with them?

Re:Perfect temperature (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32309532)

People are weird as hell.

No exceptions.

Re:Perfect temperature (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32309584)

Look, just because all you personally ever eat comes out of a microwave, in a bag, or from the hands of a greasy fast food drone...

Re:Perfect temperature (2, Funny)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 4 years ago | (#32309902)

Many signature dishes come out at the perfect temperature

No they don't. Get over yourselves.

It's the whole idea behind the McDLT.

Boy oh boy! (4, Funny)

DigitAl56K (805623) | more than 4 years ago | (#32309362)

This story looks magnificent, I love the arrangement of the words and the punctuation! Hang on while I read it... ... meh...

Re:Boy oh boy! (1)

jjoelc (1589361) | more than 4 years ago | (#32309496)

poor analogy.. typography and graphic artist geeks will be glad to point out why.

Re:Boy oh boy! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32310168)

Seen on Slashdot:
"Sir, your analogy was exceedingly poor. Please pay attention to this typography specialist who will explain to you why."

Re:Boy oh boy! (2)

e9th (652576) | more than 4 years ago | (#32309514)

Remember, the story sat in the Firehose for over two hours before you read it.

Re:Boy oh boy! (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 4 years ago | (#32309622)

Well that explains the smell....

Disturbing the other guests (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32309394)

Perhaps the real problem is that all the flash lights disturb the other guests in the restaurant.

Re:Disturbing the other guests (3, Funny)

stephanruby (542433) | more than 4 years ago | (#32310296)

You've read the article! That's completely uncool. You're ruining it for the rest of us. Next time, please include a ***SPOILER*** alert in your comment.

Re:Disturbing the other guests (1)

History's Coming To (1059484) | more than 4 years ago | (#32310388)

A good few places (in the UK at least) have "dining in the dark" nights where everything is blacked out. It's supposed to highlight your other senses.

Minutes? (5, Insightful)

shoemakc (448730) | more than 4 years ago | (#32309424)

...a few minutes? What is this, the 1840's?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_photography [wikipedia.org]

Re:Minutes? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32309464)

No, they are bloggers from 2010.

Re:Minutes? (4, Funny)

game kid (805301) | more than 4 years ago | (#32309550)

Dude. High dynamic range entrées take time.

People really do this? (3, Insightful)

theJML (911853) | more than 4 years ago | (#32309474)

I don't know about anyone else, but when I have to wait at a restaurant to get seated and then wait for food, the only thing on my mind when that food appears is eating it. Sure I'll talk about how good it tastes and how great it looks, but that's gonna happen while eating it. I'm not going to go "Sweet! That's EXACTLY what I wanted and I'm starving, oh it smells so good I'm just going to whip out my iPhone and start blogging about it." No, I'm hungry gosh darn it, GET IN MY BELLY!

Re:People really do this? (3, Interesting)

MonTemplar (174120) | more than 4 years ago | (#32309538)

Agreed. The only time I'd use my phone whilst in a restaurant would be a) to take a photo if it's a birthday party or celebration, or b) if there was really bad service or standards of hygiene, and I wanted proof to back it up when I reported it. Ok, technically there's also c) to take a call, but I would either switch the phone off or put it on silent or vibrate, to avoid pissing off everyone around me.

-MT.

Re:People really do this? (2, Interesting)

Kjella (173770) | more than 4 years ago | (#32309596)

I get that often, but that's for when I just chow something down at a cheap place or at home or a fastfood joint. If I go to an expensive restaurant, I don't go there that hungry. For one the portions are rarely that big, secondly what's the point of blowing the cash if it'll barely touch your taste buds on the way down? Had to do that recently because of a misunderstanding so we had to leave early, what a waste of delicious beef when I barely got more enjoyment out of it than a trip to Burger King. At least I wasn't the one paying or I'd be really annoyed...

Re:People really do this? (1)

vadim_t (324782) | more than 4 years ago | (#32309626)

I've taken photos of my food twice: Once when I thought it'd be something spectacularly large, and once when trying to capture the preparation of "fireball icecream". I think it makes sense to give it a try when you think it's going to be something memorable. It took me maybe 30 seconds both times.

But it never occured to me to actually set up a tripod at a restaurant. It just seems like an awkward thing to do, especially in a place where somebody else could run into it. Besides being an inconsiderate thing to do, high end camera equipment and food don't mix very well, and restaurants have a lot of it.

Re:People really do this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32310138)

You obviously don't understand the mind of a true blogger, they have to blog about everything they do.

Credo: "I blog, therefore I am."

Life bloggers... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32309572)

These guys are the scum of the Internet. Any bricks and motor store with any sense should have a sign banning them

New /. section? (4, Funny)

jdawg (21639) | more than 4 years ago | (#32309594)

Anxiously awaiting food.slashdot.org.

And the incessant whining from RMS about restaurants that don't publish their recipes.

Re:New /. section? (1)

dmitriy88 (1096195) | more than 4 years ago | (#32309628)

i don't understand why this is on /. either...

Re:New /. section? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32309734)

iDon't either ...

Re:New /. section? (2, Informative)

Xtifr (1323) | more than 4 years ago | (#32309744)

The word "blogger" tripped their acceptance regex. (:

Re:New /. section? (5, Funny)

Adambomb (118938) | more than 4 years ago | (#32309740)

I have altered the soup. Pray I don't alter it any further.

Re:New /. section? (1)

FoolishOwl (1698506) | more than 4 years ago | (#32309772)

Now there's a comment that belongs on Slashdot.

Re:New /. section? (2, Funny)

shadowbearer (554144) | more than 4 years ago | (#32310122)

[Elsewhere]

  I sense a great disturbance in the food. As if millions of diners salivated in ecstasy, then were suddenly tasteless. I fear something terrible has happened.

Re:New /. section? (1)

Nimey (114278) | more than 4 years ago | (#32310380)

Brilliant.

Re:New /. section? (3, Interesting)

ChipMonk (711367) | more than 4 years ago | (#32309778)

Well, they do publish their ingredients, at least in the USA. They have to, for people with food allergies.

As for the actual preparations, well, nobody will stop you from reverse-engineering them. After all, that's the Open Source way.

Re:New /. section? (1)

discord5 (798235) | more than 4 years ago | (#32309848)

Anxiously awaiting food.slashdot.org.

And the incessant whining from RMS about restaurants that don't publish their recipes.

For some reason I don't see the term "open sauce" catching on that well. On the upside, I don't think food can be cucumbered by patents.

But... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32309912)

You're not supposed to do any cooking when you have open sores.

Re:New /. section? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32309998)

From ESR's jargon file:

http://catb.org/jargon/html/p-convention.html

[Once, when we were at a Chinese restaurant, Bill Gosper wanted to know whether someone would like to share with him a two-person-sized bowl of soup. His inquiry was: “Split-p soup?” — GLS]

Tacky? (3, Interesting)

CodeNameSly (1817530) | more than 4 years ago | (#32309716)

Maybe I'm just old-fashioned, but whipping out your camera at a nice restaurant seems decidedly tacky. Flashes could also disturb fellow diners.

Re:Tacky? (2, Insightful)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 4 years ago | (#32310264)

I would be against the flash, that would only annoy those around you. It's possible to take good pictures without flash, and take pictures pretty quickly. I suggest that food bloggers learn how to not use flash, for one, for the annoyance, another, flash distorts the appearance of the surroundings with light that's only there for a fraction of a second, it's not the restaurant's normal lighting. It helps to learn how to be discrete too. Have the camera set up already, when no one is looking, take it out of the bag, snap a few quick shots and put it away before anyone notices.

You are all missing the point. (4, Interesting)

Organic Brain Damage (863655) | more than 4 years ago | (#32309960)

Food bloggers are simply braggarts. "Look at me and the wonderful food I'm enjoying! Aren't I just precious?" This is the sub-text of almost every food blog. It's even more obnoxious than disturbing the fellow diners.

To do it right (1)

mrmeval (662166) | more than 4 years ago | (#32309990)

If you're going to go clandestine go and eat and take copious notes. Then setup a photo shoot with the restaurant of what you had. You will have the time to set up your photographic equipment correctly and take good photos not some spur of the moment flash crap that makes the stuff look like roast corpse.

If you're not going to go clandestine set up a private room and explain who you are and why you're coming. Most TV stations do this. Most of the reviews I've seen the most effort expended on are the positive ones. And by chance the positive ones are the ones I want to read. I want a score for the bad ones so I can avoid them.

I would not take a camera to a little Mexican hole in the wall I know as the patrons might complain but I fully plan on taking pictures of the food and the new add on they're making when they scrape up enough money to complete it. I'm sure the owner will allow a private photo shoot. The owner is at least a 3 star chef, the food is not cheap and the way he makes it is better than any so called Mexican restaurant within 50 miles. There are a few true Mexican restaurants in town but not even those compare to this gem.

Food blogging in a different form (1)

Petersko (564140) | more than 4 years ago | (#32310032)

Slightly offtopic, but I use the Urban Spoon app a lot. In general I don't trust any individual food bloggers. It's impossible to know which twits ordered something they probably wouldn't like but wanted to try, and then blogged about how they didn't like it. Or the waitress didn't respond to their "Are you from Tennessee?" pickup line and they feel slighted. Or they just like to bitch. Or they just don't like the race of the proprietor.

So I've begun to trust the raw number. 87% of people liked it out of 150 reviews? I'm in.

Found an awesome vietnamese place the other day that way, minutes from my home. I've been ordering Bun Bo Hue for a couple of decades, and this lady was the first person to good-naturedly) correct me. It's pronounced "huay", not "hew". They were all laughing at me, I just know it.

Sounds like an epidemic (2, Interesting)

auLucifer (1371577) | more than 4 years ago | (#32310320)

But is it really that bad? Maybe it just hasn't caught on in little Brisbane, Australia and I'm missing the point as to why it's front page worthy on /.

ZOMG! Heisenberg uncertainty principle for food! (1)

sourcerror (1718066) | more than 4 years ago | (#32310332)

ZOMG! Heisenberg uncertainty principle for food!

its enthusiastic, not enthused (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32310360)

Please review the dictionary on proper us of the verb enthuse verses the adjective enthusiastic.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>