Taking pictures at restaurants?

I've noticed a lot of people take pictures at restaurants, but I will admit, the idea of it makes me kind of nervous. So I have a couple of questions.

Are most people using point and shoot cameras that are nice and small to possibly keep interest away?

I ask because I only have a DSLR and it is kind of big and obvious and I think others might find it annoying.

Has anyone ever been asked to not take pictures once they have started?

Also do people have a scale for what types of restaurants they will take pictures at? Such as leaving the camera home when going out to a fine dining place, but taking it along to more down home type pace.

Thanks for any input you can offer.

-Brandon

Opinions on the subject, predictably, vary quite a bit. I take the camera everywhere and photograph everything, no matter how ritzy, but my personal guidelines are somewhat stricter than some. I use a tiny subcompact with everything turned off... no flash, no AF lasers or lights, LCD turned down as low as possible, no menu beeps, no artificial shutter sound, and I try to palm the thing... aiming for total stealth. At the French Laundry, a woman next to us walked around the table with a massive SLR at every course, using red laser autofocus and a bright flash. It was one of the more irritating dining experiences I've had, and is exactly what I try NOT to do.

I've never been asked to stop, but a couple of restaurants have asked if I'm a food blogger, and somebody at May Street Market asked if I was a member of "lith" forum

Although I haven't posted pictures on the web, I sometimes take pictures of dishes for my own enjoyment and to help remember the evening. I *always* ask the waiter ahead of time if I can snap some pictures. No one has ever said that I couldn't take pictures, but I think asking first is the courteous thing to do.

Sometimes, it just feels wrong to use a camera. At Angelica's last Friday, I shot some pix but got some uncomfortable looks from people, so I stopped. At Flamingo's a week ago, the lady behind the counter told me I had to stop (for no apparent reason; I was shooting pix of their menu on the wall). So, yeah, you kind of have to weigh the mood of the place...usually, though, I think it's pretty much okay, and I think Dom is taking the right approach with a small, unobtrusive camera.

I would probably not ask to shoot unless I were shooting a picture of a person. A server could actually be risking his manager's opprobrium by okaying a shot; I'd rather just shoot and beg forgiveness if people get upset, which they almost never do.

Thanks for the replies. I would never want to be that lady that you ran into at the French Laundry, in fact I probably would have complained about her that day.

I think the stealth approach sounds good. My wife has been wanting to get herself a point and shoot, I guess I should push for that, I just wont tell her it's really for me.

All I will say for point and shoots for food is you want something with really really really good low-light performance, because flash photography and food, and flash photography and restaurants really don't mix well.

I really don't like it when there are lots of flashes going off at restaurants. It doesn't matter to me if a fellow diner is photographing the food or Aunt Elma's 100th birthday party.

Hi,

I switch off the flash and deal with whatever the resulting picture. I was at Alinea when I realized as I depressed the button, it was going to be a flash. I moved my hands to muffle the flash as best I could, the apologized to everyone around me.

Regards,

gleam wrote:All I will say for point and shoots for food is you want something with really really really good low-light performance, because flash photography and food, and flash photography and restaurants really don't mix well.

Along these lines, you may want to look at some of the Fuji ultracompacts. While everybody else was pushing more megapixels, they were developing better low light technology, so at the consumer level they're ahead of the game when it comes to low light no flash photography. The gap isn't quite as wide as it was a couple of years ago, but they're still definitely the leader in that category.

I have a small Nikon with a Best Shot Selector (BSS) that works pretty well for food porn. I bought it for $99. It is only 5 megapixels, but I find that is more than sufficient, and the CCD seems to perform better in low light than some of the higher resolution models. I use that instead of my clunky SLR. The BSS feature allows me to take up to 10 rapid fire pictures in a row, The camera selects the one that has the best focus and deletes the others. The camera also has a museum mode that is perfect for taking close up food photos without a flash. However, sometimes there is not enough light to get a decent picture without a flash, even with the BSS.

If I know I am going to be taking pictures, I try to sit in a corner with my back to the room. In some situations, I just do not feel comfortable, so I forget the pictures. Also, if I am dining with others (who are non-LTHers), I ask them if they mind. For instance, my mom gets totally embarrassed when I start photographing my food. On a rare occassion, I have gotten a few funny looks from employees and owners, but if I explain what I am doing and why, they are usually OK with it.

I understand why some restaurants don't want you taking pictures. Some businesses are very competitive and worry about other restaurateurs stealing their dishes, design, decor and processes. It does happen all the time, especially with new franchise operations. Investment companies see a successful operation, then try to duplicate it and franchise it before the originators have a chance to raise the capital needed to expand. That happened to one of my clients. No fewer than 3 national corporations started nation-wide chains copying his Chicago based fast-food concept. They copied the designs right down to the font and colors used on the menus and sinage. One company actually stole the button graphics right off the website.

Last week, I was shooting pics in an East L.A. taqueria of some of the best al pastor tacos I've ever tasted.
A security guard rushed up and exclaimed "No photograph! No photograph!"
I inquired, "¿Por que?"
While he pondered my miserable Spanish, I took a couple more shots and put away the camera. My son tells me people take pictures there all the time and nobody says anything.

Paul SL wrote:A security guard rushed up and exclaimed "No photograph! No photograph!"

You should have asked to see his stinking badge, hombre.

Dmnkly wrote:

gleam wrote:All I will say for point and shoots for food is you want something with really really really good low-light performance, because flash photography and food, and flash photography and restaurants really don't mix well.

Along these lines, you may want to look at some of the Fuji ultracompacts. While everybody else was pushing more megapixels, they were developing better low light technology, so at the consumer level they're ahead of the game when it comes to low light no flash photography. The gap isn't quite as wide as it was a couple of years ago, but they're still definitely the leader in that category.

Yep, I would say the Fuji F30 (or if there's a newer incarnation of it) has the best low-light performance of the compact point-and-shoots. You can actually get good results at 800ISO and usable stuff (for web, at least) at 1600ISO.

For DSLRs, the best low-light performance at the moment would probably be the Canon 5D.

I've just upgraded from a Fuji A330 to the F30. Same high quality, sharp images, but at a much higher ISO. And the F30 definitely has a solider feel to it, altho' the A330 is pretty tough: three years of banging around on several continents, and it's still plinking away.

Fuji makes good stuff.

Geo

I'm still a bit uncomfortable taking photos in restaurants, but the photos I've been taking are not in fancy/expensive places. I try to sit in good light - natural or from overhead fixtures, and some of the photos don't turn out well and I don't post them.

Photo-taking can be a distraction for other diners, and a concern to restaurant wait staff and management. The staff concern, I think, is for someone who may be copying prices/menu design or to replicate dishes.

Also, some of you will recall the Tribune (I think) article months ago in which restaurant owners who were interviewed expressed concern for badly-taken photos - or not good representations - turning up on websites . . . and the possibility that future customers will be turned-off by what they see (in the bad representation instances). They also mentioned distractions caused when someone uses a flash.

I know that people posting photos do so with the best of intentions, but I see some shots that make me wince.

I've taken food photos for a long time, but not as often as I've done since participating on this forum. The photos play an important role in our communicating, so I hope people continue taking (and posting) them. The self-policing of the process is the challenge for us.

Bill wrote:Also, some of you will recall the Tribune (I think) article months ago in which restaurant owners who were interviewed expressed concern for badly-taken photos - or not good representations - turning up on websites . . . and the possibility that future customers will be turned-off by what they see (in the bad representation instances). They also mentioned distractions caused when someone uses a flash.

I completely understand and sympathize with owners' fears in this regard, but I'm not sure that I see how photographs are fundamentally different from written posts in that regard. I would suspect (though I don't base this on any kind of actual data) that those who express reservations about people photographing their food are the same who express reservations about the existence of restaurant forums, period.

I completely understand that industrial espionage, if that's the right term, is a serious problem and what drives many restaurants to be so skittish about people taking pictures. But I still think it's an argument that doesn't hold water. If I'm an unscrupulous person who wants to knock off somebody else's designs and I'm determined to get photos, I'm going to get them no matter what the staff says. And even if I don't, that strikes me as a minor hurdle. It isn't like bootlegging a live performance, where there's no way to achieve your ends without getting tape. While I sympathize with the defensive reaction, I don't think it's a rational one.

Flash, I think, is another matter entirely. Then it's an issue of disturbing other diners. But I feel the same way about obtrusive non-flash photography. If I felt other diners even noticed, I wouldn't do it.

That said, I feel dirty doing it, no matter the situation. Even if I'm resolute in my intellectual opinion that there's nothing wrong with (unobtrusively) taking photos of my food, it just feels crass. But in the end, I like posting and blogging more than I like not taking photos.

Dmnkly wrote:I completely understand and sympathize with owners' fears in this regard, but I'm not sure that I see how photographs are fundamentally different from written posts in that regard.

I think one possible distinction is that photographs seem more objective, whereas written posts seem inherently subjective. Even if it's unreasonable to assume so, there's a sense that photographs don't lie or put a gloss on things, so you can look at a photo and say what you see is what you get. In addition, there are other pointers within a write-up that influence your interpretation of that write-up -- e.g., the level of sophistication of the writing and whether there are any errors in spelling or grammar, the level of knowledge the poster shows about the cuisine and establishment, etc. Those factors might influence the level of credibility you give a written post. While a photograph may have certain characteristics that would allow you to interpret it with a more critical eye, I think most people probably miss them and see them as more or less an accurate representation of the truth.

Matt wrote:

Dmnkly wrote:I completely understand and sympathize with owners' fears in this regard, but I'm not sure that I see how photographs are fundamentally different from written posts in that regard.

I think one possible distinction is that photographs seem more objective, whereas written posts seem inherently subjective. Even if it's unreasonable to assume so, there's a sense that photographs don't lie or put a gloss on things, so you can look at a photo and say what you see is what you get.

I understand what you're saying, but if that's so, wouldn't this be a reason for restaurant owners to support photography but not write-ups, and not the other way around? I thought the idea was that they fear being misrepresented. If restaurant owners do (erroneously, in my opinion, but that's another subject) make the distinction that photographs are more objective than writing, then shouldn't they be positively thrilled that this yahoo's subjective write-up will at least be accompanied by some objective photos?

Dmnkly wrote:I understand what you're saying, but if that's so, wouldn't this be a reason for restaurant owners to support photography but not write-ups, and not the other way around? I thought the idea was that they fear being misrepresented. If restaurant owners do (erroneously, in my opinion, but that's another subject) make the distinction that photographs are more objective than writing, then shouldn't they be positively thrilled that this yahoo's subjective write-up will at least be accompanied by some objective photos?

I think restaurateurs, particularly those with a web presence and/or promotional materials utilizing photographs, know just how important good photography is and that not all photos are a good "objective" renderings of the outputs of a particular kitchen. What I think they are worried about is that most of the viewing public (in which I would not include most of the regular contributors to this forum, who have more discerning eyes, ears, noses and mouths for things food-related) do not make that distinction. So I think it's not how professionals in the industry themselves view photographs (which I would assume is more sophisticated), but how they think the public views them that's probably at issue. Of course, this is all conjecture on my part, as I am not a restaurant owner but do potentially have a more critical eye for how truly photography conveys an accurate representation of something than the "general public."

I've shot everywhere from Everest to Per Se to Mr. Beef but my posting etiquette is very strict. If I've got a shot where the food looks like a big brown lump of you know what, I'm not going to put it up. Whether it's my fault photographically, or the restaurant's. I shoot to record the meal and put up photos to show people great food, not to just show people I ate blurry unrecognizable gruel in a place where everything is yellow (learn about white balance people!).

People who use flash in restaurants should have their camera licenses revoked. Nevermind the obtrusiveness to the entire establishment, point and shoot flashes take nasty pictures, everytime.

Eventually, irresponsible photographers and posters will undoubtedly ruin it for everyone, and they'll ban it faster than smoking. Just like this site has rules of etiquette, maybe some could be applied to photography, although I realize the subjective mess that would be.

Simple rules - no flash, get in close, learn your cameras controls - sound off and white balance if you have it. Before you post, color correct your shot. Get yourself Photoshop Elements (cheap version of its all-powerful big brother) and learn the curves control, or find similar (and easier, but less powerful) controls in the software that came with your camera or computer. People will start using words like 'stunning' about your shots.

That said, I wouldn't want restaurants banning photography because we're showing the truth - kind of like this Fast Food ad vs. reality site.

Ever notice that most supermarkets from Mituswa to Jewel have "no photos" signs? Make a little more sense to me since your shooting things you haven't paid for yet.

Last night we went out to Restaurant Magnus here in Madison. Halfway through the meal a group of tourists sat down a couple of tables away. First it was a few clicks with the point and shoot, then one guy pulled out his Cannon DSLR and his huge flash. They had not even ordered yet. He fired away about three or four shots with full flash and I think everyone in the restaurant was staring at him. Not sure if he felt the pressure or was just done recording his buddies in the restaurant but he put the camera down and didn't pick it up again. If he would have fired one more time I was going to get the hostess. The room is not big, and it was very distracting.

I would not have been comfortable with any camera in that setting. Good meal though.

I'm wondering if anyone has ever been asked not to take photos of their food while dining out. If so, where? And how was it handled? Looking for any good stories!

JCF,

Your query was merged into an exist topic on the same issue.

I've only been declines a few times. Sorry the stories were not dramatic. What has been your experience?

Regards,

JCF wrote:I'm wondering if anyone has ever been asked not to take photos of their food while dining out. If so, where? And how was it handled? Looking for any good stories!

Note that Jason since took down the page on his site with the cease and desist letter as he wanted it to die, but it's just too good of a story, so here's the slashfood write up: http://www.slashfood.com/2006/01/03/dcf ... nd-desist/

Couldn't find this online, but in the Trib's Food & Whine column yesterday, Janet Franz included this snippet:

As anyone who frequents such websites as LTHForum.com knows, snapping photos of everything from quail egg ravioli to mission fig beignets has become commonplace among food enthusiasts, especially at high-end restaurants. But does anyone (besides me) see this as a breach of good etiquette? What if the couple celebrating their 25th wedding anniversary wants to savor their $150 tasting menu without being distracted by the diners at the next table pulling out their Canons and camera phones to get just the right angle on their arugula-crusted salmon? Shouldn't these folks be focusing instead on the food itself, and perhaps their dining companions, rather than how they're going to illustrate their next blog entry? Other than requesting that diners refrain from using flashes, restaurants I contacted seemed reluctant to comment on the practice, much less regulate it. So, readers, please drop an email to [email protected] and let me know what you think.

Found the link.

Man, whine is right.

Thank goodness, there are those who are only looking for good stories.

Reminds me of a concert I attended many years ago where Keith Jarrett, the jazz pianist, was playing solo. In the middle of a piece, he heard a camera click (no flash), stopped playing, walked to a microphone, and uttered the following: "I can't believe some people are more interested in history than moment." A remark with some truth, and a quite a dose of pretentiousness in it.

Jonah

Cathy2 wrote:Thank goodness, there are those who are only looking for good stories.

C2, is the link you provided correct...or am I missing some subtle self-referential commentary here?

Hi,

I am suggesting Janet Franz and JCF are the same person. Our 'good stories' might have come back to haunt us.

Fortunately, I don't really have any good stories on this!

Regards,