Serious Eats - seriouseats.com

I feel shy about taking pictures of food (I don't know why, but I feel like some sort of freak, the only person on the planet to do this, which is obviously nonsense), and only do so occasionally, but as long as other patrons are being strictly omitted from the images, and a flash isn't used, I don't think this is a problem. True, food is meant to be eaten, but sometimes it is also so impressive visually, I want to show a few friends, and I'll take a shot. I usually only move myself or the dish I'm shooting in order to ensure that other diners aren't in the shot. As long taking a picture or two is a brief, low-key incident, it seems fine.

It seems strange that any restaurant would ban even the taking of photos of the diners at one's own table, as this has been a longstanding tradition, and I can remember seeing this done even when I was a small child (in excellent restaurants), by people celebrating some special event; the waiter was often included in the shot. And let's not forget all those photos of dinners at all classes of restaurants that go back as far as the existence of the SLR camera, at least

On the other hand, use of the terms 'food porn' and 'foodie' should be punishable by law ;)

Despite what Drew said, I was at Nobu 57 this weekend and when I tried to take pictures I was told emphatically that no photography was allowed inside the dining room.

I offered to shoot without a flash. I told them I only wanted to shoot the food and possibly my friends. In both cases I was told absolutely no.

After begging the manager, I was allowed to take some pictures of a couple of dishes as they left the kitchen.

It was explained to me that this was the company's policy.

I understand other people not wanting to be photographed. I also understand that flashes can be annoying. But since I was perfectly willing to use available light, I don't see why this was a factor.

As a New York food photographer I actually get hired by PR firms to help promote restaurants. Having a photo of a plate on somebody's blog with a reference to the restaurant is like free publicity that restaurants should value it. In my opinion they should provide free meals to food bloggers. Often when I travel, I come into the Churches and some of them prohibit photography. But a restaurant come on give me a break.

Am I the only person who doesn't understand why this is "antisocial"? I mean, I take the photo, then I get on with my meal. And yes, that means eating the food and conversing with whoever I'm eating with. It's not like the photographing lasts the duration of the meal. Am I missing something?

I was one asked to leave a Burger King for taking photos.

And I'm pretty sure they sent around a flyer to all their stores with my picture on it, because I was trying to snap a few shots of their food storage room one day when the girl working the front counter invited me to ... "have a look around".

Turns out the Store Manager and Corporate don't really want people back there, despite what the friendly counter girls says. :)

Yes, this hardly compares to Momofuku but...

I don't understand how people who are fans of this very website could be against taking photos of food in restaurants. Aren't the pictures, the visuals, a big part of why we read it?
If you enjoy food porn, how can you be waggling your finger at the people who make it?

Once in a while I take photos in restaurants. I am always self-conscious when I do it and try to be as discreet as possible. I bring a small digital with good resolution and I try to sit near a window if it's light out so I can take an okay picture without a flash.

I feel that if I pay for the food and act responsibly, then I should be allowed to do that.

If people want to talk on their phones, I expect that they won't be any louder than they would if someone were sitting with them. After all, if they were talking to a friend at the table, what's the difference?

But on the subject of atmosphere, I am much more bothered in a restaurant when small children start screaming or crying and the parent doesn't remove them from the scene and thereby force everyone to deal with it.

I like looking at the pictures on food blogs. The ones without photos are never as interesting.

Also, in response to Chang's complaint that everyone wants the same dishes he's been serving for the last 4 months, my first response is: Really? I'd think it would be awesome to have something different! I'd also think that since his dishes have been so photographed, he's be inspired to come up with new one all the time to keep diners on their toes.

This guy Chang is full of himself. I know other's covet a reservation at Momofuku Ko, but I skip over the hundreds of food blogs entries about his joint. In a year, it'll just be one more restaurant to talk about.

I fully agree that flash photography is a sucky and inconsiderate practice in a restaurant.

Take a few shots of a memorable meal is fully acceptable. No well-regarded restaurant owner or chef would prohibit, if done in a socially acceptable manner. If a chef prohibits it, it's probably because he's insecure about others attempting to reproduce original dishes.

I, too, photograph memorable meals like I would photograph memorable vacation locales. I've never been discouraged by restaurant personnel.
In fact, during a particularly memorable tapas-style meal consisting of 21 courses at l'Atelier de Jean-Luc Rabanel (http://www.rabanel.com/) in Arles, France, the waitstaff would pose with each course, allowing me to photograph the dishes in good light and before eager diners dug in.

Where the heck are the great Seattle joints, then? I can't stand the milky ones, which seem to be the majority here. Crunchy tapioca balls also suck.

Crispy enough so that the fat is crunchy but not so much that the meat is dried out

Crispy