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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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!

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.

People are weird as hell.

No exceptions.

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.

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

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.

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

*That's not a joke.

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

The taste of food is intrinsically linked to how much your body needs it. And it even goes down in more detail as to what kind of food your body needs. It is fascinating really. Especially how quickly the taste adepts once you get the needed mineral/vitamin into your system.

Yeah, I'd be pretty annoyed if I were at some high end-restaurant and someone next to me was setting up a tripod with flash to photograph his food. Taking a photo with your iPhone or whatever is fine, if a bit gauche, but setting up a whole production isn't really something people with decent manners should do in someone else's establishment, at least unless they've cleared it ahead of time.

It sounds like some of the photographers in question are avoiding flash by setting up tripods, which somehow also seems pretty tacky to do in a restaurant, at least unless you're an official photographer brought in by the restaurant.

Middle class worry if it's tasty.

Poor people worry if there is enough.

That could be said of bloggers in general. I'm interested in the opinions of experts and scholars, not the average person. The ease of entry into blogging is what puts it at the forefront of the common man information revolution, or whatever. But I'm not interested in the facile/banal musings of halfwits with the delusion of insight.

Of course, I'm putting my opinion out there right now... but I haven't put it out in my own, ostensibly unique little forum, as though I'm some formidable intellectual force.

Wait, do you seriously blog about how your roommate's cooking is not as good as yours, mostly because of your "level of dedication", being a culinary arts student?

Talk about braggarts and pretentious pricks.

        -dZ.

Oh, you're one of those, who equate quantity with quality.

        -dZ.

Oh, you're one of those, who equate quantity with quality.

Serving a portion size unable to sate a common appetite misses the point of food and eating. Plating skill and preparation are distinguishing features on top of eating, unless one is attending an explicit 'tasting'. Or else it's an underhanded way to upsell dessert.

$10/oz meals that aren't using very expensive ingredients are for the Stockholm diners.