Serious Eats New York - newyork.seriouseats.com

When I ate there a few weeks ago, we were talking to one of the chefs about this exact issue. His complaint didn't stem from flashes or disturbances; but rather how it was ruining their ability to constantly change the menu. Because Ko has been so blogged about, after finally snagging a reservation, diners want the meal they read about. I think that this new ban, fair or not, stems from the chefs desire to create something new, much more often.

Flash Photography should be banned, period. It's rude. If you don't know how to work your camera enough to turn off the flash, you shouldn't be using it. Nothing is more annoying than being in a nice restaurant with a friggen flash going off.

@Adam - hahahaha! That photo of robyn is amazing. Why didn't we use that as the main photo in this piece! I can't stop laughing...

Restaurants are the new amusement parks.

I'm with Chang on this. Eat the food. Are you there for the experience, or are you there anticipating your blog posting afterwards? I think it's a strange perversion. It reminds of people who think they hear or feel their cellphones ringing all the time when it isn't. And blackberry thumb. It's sad really.

I can't help wondering why people taking pictures of their food is so bad. After all, people have been taking pictures of each other in restaurants for years. Any gathering of more than half a dozen people usually has someone snapping a few photos for posterity. I've never heard of anyone complaining about that...why is taking photos of food any different?

My god, why are people taking photography so seriously? It's just a picture of food, not kiddy porn. As a food blogger, I say leave me be! Why is it so absolutely offensive to some people? Wouldn't some action like coughing profusely be more offensive? It's disseminating germs after all...
I completely understand the flash issue. Totally reasonable, flashes hurt the eyes and can be annoying. Turn it off. But like the last post by simon, "strange perversion"?? Relax, why so angry? What were you, dumped by a food blogger once or something?
To some of us, food is art and capturing art on film can and should be allowed. Some might say taking photos of flowers and trees is ridiculous. So what's the big deal about wanting to photograph a beautiful plate that someone crafted?

For me it's less about remembering it for myself. I prefer having fuzzy memories and a good feeling about a place or a food. But I started taking pix of pizzas and slices to help document it for other people who were reading Slice or A Hamburger Today. In that case, I felt I was doing readers a service by showing them what I ate and what to expect while there. It also helps convey balance of of cheese to sauce or the topping distribution -- and of course the pizza upskirts show how much color a pizza's crust has, which is often a good indicator of quality.

I'd have to say that I have it a bit easier in photographing pizzas and burgers because those establishments are usually not high-end, and there's not as much at stake if I encroach on other people's experience there.

I usually try to be discreet about things and limit my shooting time to a few seconds here and there. That said, when I see people going really nuts with the camerawork, I cringe because I feel like they're "ruining it" for the people like me who are discreet and that they give food bloggers a bad name.

I'm not going to stop taking my food photos any time soon. I don't think Slice or AHT or Serious Eats would be as good without them, as modest as my skills are.

That said, in the not-so-distant future, you know there's going to be prosthetic eyes that have cameras built in and that people will be recording and shooting ALL THE TIME, à la Justin.tv

When I was at Ko, some food blogger and her boyfriend were sitting next to me (who I do not know), but I did find her angling and maneuvering to get her (non-flash) photos annoying. It's not a normal restaurant -- the set up is such that it's like having dinner with the people sitting next to you, and while there's space between the stools, you are very conscious of your neighbors' physical presence. And the damn thing made an electronic click sound with every photo -- think if someone in an intimate had a Blackberry pinging constantly. This is no less intrusive.

Although I don't understand the point of obsessively photographing food -- a picture only tells me that something is pretty, while insightful writing can tell me whether I want to eat something or not, or make me think about it in a new way -- under normal circumstances, I think to each their own.

But Ko, for better or worse, is different.

I don't think photography is restaurants is any worse than people on their cell phones or bluetooth devices or laptops. Nor is it any worse than children who are allowed by their parents to run unfettered anywhere but in parks and at home.

However, I kind of feel sorry for people who feel the need to document every dining moment even at the expense of alienating their dining companions, the other restaurant patrons and the restaurant staff. It reminds me of those vacationers who never look up from their video cameras and miss the experience of the place they're so intent on documenting. Sad.

Well, I just came back from 2 weeks in Prague and Vienna with my sister. Neither one of us blogs. We both took photos of almost all of our food, however:
http://www.flickr.com/search/?w=19479358@N00&q;=%28vienna+or+prague%29+and+meals&m;=tags

It would NEVER occur to either of us to use our flash, or to take the photos any other way than discreetly. We're just a little bit embarrassed by our food geekiness, but not enough to stop.

I'm particularly proud of the photo of our first meal in Prague, and of the Savarin at the Cafe Sacher. The food was exquisite, and the memory will always live for me. I only wish I could recreate the tastes, as well!

Waiting for your food to arrive on the table reminds me of my sister's favorite saying, "hunger makes the best sauce" but waiting for the "foodie" friends to click away and find that perfect shot, it becomes an unbearable tease.

I take food pictures ALL the time when I'm traveling, and never once has it occurred to me that I might be annoying or offending anyone. I usually turn off the flash, because I prefer the way the pictures come out. I'm seriously in shock that this has even become a matter of discussion!

Food to me is as important a part in my travels as the sites are - eiffel tower or crepe, acropolis or spanikopita, there's no way I'm going to stop documenting the amazing things that I've eaten around the world. I look at the food pictures, and they bring me back to that moment more than the other pictures do - I remember the smell, the taste, the texture... I can't imagine not being able to hold onto those memories.

I consider myself a very respectful person, especially while traveling as I know that other places has different customs, but I don't understand how my discreet taking of photos will affect anyone around me, and I would be upset if anyone asked me to stop.

As the person who started this whole mess, here's my two cents: http://ulteriorepicure.wordpress.com/2008/06/20/ridiculousness/

The issue really is that many people simply are rude. They'll use the flash, they'll take multiple shots of dishes, they'll get up and move around the table to get more angles. And so on.

As soon as one, as a restaurateur, decides that they wish to implement rules about taking photos; the easiest and most consistent rule to apply is "no photography."

Unfortunately, this means that otherwise polite people who are subtle about their photography and aware of their surroundings get caught up in the effort to keep those who are not both of those things from infringing on other diners' experiences.

On the whole, I feel that chefs/owners/managers who institute such a policy aren't doing anything wrong; hopefully they'll get some constructive feedback from would-be-photographers who can make a good case for other rules that would accomplish the objectives of the chef/owner/manager while still allowing for polite, reasonable photography.

I have to admit that this makes sense to me: "When you go to a restaurant to have a meal and four people bust out the SLRs, it takes away from the dining experience..." I think it's much less obtrusive to take out a camera phone that doesn't flash but in a fine dining establishment, that subtle glow of candle light might not be enough to take a good picture. In that situation, let words describe the experience. (BTW, Adam, LOL@ That picture - how perfect!) I read an entry on one of my bulletin boards recently (Cassandra Crossing) and it painted an incredible picture without a single photograph.

I generally take pix of my own cooking or baking to post on a discussion board or my blog with a recipe or account of an event. I rarely take pix in restaurants. I find I do this more if I dine alfresco vs. the main dining room. It doesn't much matter if I photograph my dish while foot traffic is going by.

I'm a food blogger as well and I actually don't take pictures of food in restaurants. I personally find it a bit rude and detracting from the whole dining experience. Adam touched on this earlier, if it is a burger place or pizza spot that's one thing I can live with that, but when you bring a camera into a find dining establishment or an extremely small spot it changes everything. Photos on blogs, thats a great thing, I like looking at the pictures and getting an idea of what's out there, however, I can understand Chang's frustration. When people whip at camera's at restaurants it gets the attention of all around. If you can manage to not let a soul be disrupted by taking a photo then go for it, but that is usually not the case. I'll keep my food photos to what I make at home, outdoor festivals/bbqs and those burger and pizza spots.

I'm glad to see this subject being discussed so some basic (common sense) guidelines can be brought up. I'm also glad - as someone who runs a food photo sharing web site - to see that the consensus is in favor of photos being ok :) I have no problem with flash photography being banned though - it is simply too disruptive and rude.

Totally agree on no flash. I have to say, this is one of the reasons I don't have a d-SLR (yet). It's so big I feel it would just intrude in a restaurant. I shoot with my compact camera, flash off, and if it's not my dish, I shoot ONE snap of it. Period. I let my friends eat even when they're like "Are you sure? Take another one, that looks blurry" because I don't really need photos of their dishes since I'm not eating them. (Occasionally they insist on taking the pictures for me, in which case, I leave the flash on for them partially so they'll only need to take one pic and it won't be blurry, and partially so they don't take more than one, haha.)

Having said that, I agree with the people who said that documenting what you've eaten is just, well, for posterity's sake. Though I do photograph nearly everything I eat, I do not blog about all of it. There are some pictures that I look at and my mouth begins to water immediately, and it brings to mind the flavors and the textures and everything that dish was at the moment. If I don't take pictures of the food, I don't remember it as easily and that is important to me. I've curbed my photographing though; as mentioned, I have it down to one shot per dish. I've done the same with my vacation photos of landmarks - I used to have the camera glued to my face for vacations but then I realized I wasn't enjoying it as much, so now I take a few snaps here and there (and let me friends do most of the picture taking, haha).

I'm kind of pissed about David Chang's rule because 1- others are sure to follow and 2- the fact is, if it's good, I want to remember it beyond just when I go to the bathroom hours later. I want to be able to look back at a photo and think "Damn, I want to make that" or "Wow, that SUCKED."

Where is Susan Sontag when you need her?

Whatever.

STOP OPPRESSING THE FOOD GEEKS!!!

Seriously -- "banning photography from restaurants" is not an issue, it's more specific than that. It's "banning photography from high-end, upscale restaurants."

Etiquette and protocol for enjoying your restaurant experience is so friggin bourgeois, I find it as a turn-off.

That said -- when in Rome... So when in an egotistically-charged, rockstar headlining eats place, ok -- mebbe I can understand the upside-down smile. They want the food to be eaten, not be visually dissected like a zoo animal.

THAT said, if we're PAYING that much for a meal, why are we not allowed to snap a photo? It's MINE, I ORDERED it. Plus, food photography and pornography does play a heavy role in whetting the appetites of those who are attracted to come that such a high-end or gem-of-a-find establishment. Chances are, it's a special occasion, and camera clickers just want to document and share the joy.

Sigh, sigh, and SIGH. Unabashed joy be banned. It must be restrained enjoyment.

THAT said... I DO think there can be something to an effect of a compromise.

Like a smoking, non-smoking section, there can be a photography-non-photography section of a restaurant.

The thing is -- it's also not taking the patron's enjoyment into account if the patron is made to feel dirty and unwanted as soon as he or she whips out a camera. It's not filling the air with cancer or horribly, horribly loud.

At the same time, I can see how the chef or waitstaff (at very specific KINDS of eateries) would see it as an obnoxious sort of phenomenon... I GUESS... urrrrgh.

But in the end, there should be some kind of consensus.

Yeah, Chang can say, "It's FOOD. EAT IT." at the same time, patrons can also say, "It's FOOD. COOK IT." Yeah. Don't think that'd go over too well with the chef, me thinks.

In the end, it's a battle of control/egos as well. Chang and co want their patrons to enjoy food a certain way and some of the patrons of the food blogging breed feel a fundamental way of enjoying the food is to document it and waxing poetic (or NOT) about what was eaten.

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.

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.

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 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?

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...

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?

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.

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.

I just got back from Corton. The website asks guests to refrain from using flash photography and cell phones. I accept that gladly. You quote Drew here as saying,

"No, we're not going to stop people from taking photos," Nieporent said. "We'd just like people to be considerate of the other people in the restaurant.""

So why, when I entered, was I told that no photography was permitted. I asked nicely and was told, "no". The host asked the chef and reiterated that it was not permissible. I explained that I would not use a flash. I explained that I would not use the photos online nor for any commercial purposes. Still, my request was refused. I feel lied to based on the website only saying that "flash photography" was not permitted and also the quote here from Drew. So Drew, why is this?

The food at Corton was good but, just like Momofuku Ko, I won't be back. I see no reason to reward restaurants who don't consider my desire for a permanent memory, valid. They can make any policies they like but I still get to chose where I dine. I also chose to deal with people who advertise honestly. Drew said that, "we're not going to stop people" but that is just what they did. That to me is deceptive.

In the interest of full disclosure, the host did comp a round of drinks for us because of this. Still, it, (please, please, pardon the pun, leaves a bad taste in my mouth.