Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
Social Networks

Food Bloggers Giving Restaurant Owners Heartburn 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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Food Bloggers Giving Restaurant Owners Heartburn

Comments Filter:
  • Boy oh boy! (Score:5, Funny)

    by DigitAl56K ( 805623 ) * on Saturday May 22, 2010 @06:35PM (#32309362)

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

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 22, 2010 @06:38PM (#32309394)
    Perhaps the real problem is that all the flash lights disturb the other guests in the restaurant.
    • by stephanruby ( 542433 ) on Saturday May 22, 2010 @08:54PM (#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.
    • 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.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Trepidity ( 597 )

      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.

  • Minutes? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by shoemakc ( 448730 ) on Saturday May 22, 2010 @06:41PM (#32309424) Homepage

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

  • by theJML ( 911853 ) on Saturday May 22, 2010 @06:48PM (#32309474) Homepage

    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!

    • by MonTemplar ( 174120 ) <> on Saturday May 22, 2010 @06:58PM (#32309538) Journal

      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.


    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Kjella ( 173770 )

      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 leas

    • by vadim_t ( 324782 )

      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

  • by jdawg ( 21639 ) <> on Saturday May 22, 2010 @07:07PM (#32309594) Homepage

    Anxiously awaiting

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

    • by Adambomb ( 118938 ) on Saturday May 22, 2010 @07:34PM (#32309740) Journal

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

    • Re:New /. section? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by ChipMonk ( 711367 ) on Saturday May 22, 2010 @07:40PM (#32309778) Journal
      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.
    • Anxiously awaiting

      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.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Hurricane78 ( 562437 )

      Considering the average weight of a geek, food definitely is “the other thing that he likes very much”. :)

      Then again, considering his food mainly consists of (forgive my lack of knowledge about US trash “food”) pop tarts and pizza... ;)

      But I already thought: Why is there not a /.-like site for all areas of expertise? One for cooks. One for artists. One for porn stars... (no, you’re not allowed there!). Whatever. :)

  • Tacky? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by CodeNameSly ( 1817530 ) on Saturday May 22, 2010 @07:28PM (#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: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Jeff DeMaagd ( 2015 )

      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

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Trepidity ( 597 )

        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.

  • by Organic Brain Damage ( 863655 ) on Saturday May 22, 2010 @08:05PM (#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.
  • 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 positiv

  • 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
  • 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 /.
  • by Zey ( 592528 ) on Saturday May 22, 2010 @10:25PM (#32310836)
    crimeandpunishment writes:

    Some restaurants have taken the step of banning cameras, or at least have established a 'no flash' rule.

    Here was I thinking it was because they fear nobody's going to go to a restaurant serving a tiny portion size. The more the cook fancies himself as a great chef, the less you'll get on your plate.

    • by dzfoo ( 772245 ) on Sunday May 23, 2010 @09:37AM (#32313672)

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


      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        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.

  • A few minutes? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Arancaytar ( 966377 ) <> on Saturday May 22, 2010 @11:44PM (#32311168) Homepage

    Are they using polaroid cameras?

I've noticed several design suggestions in your code.