Support NeoGAF

[entremet]

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/re...-ban-food-flash-photography/story?id=18302662

Attention, foodies: Restaurant owners are asking you to stop snapping photos of your gourmet brie cheeseburger with truffle oil-drenched fries.

The days of simply dining and enjoying have changed. More and more restaurant-goers are pulling out their smartphones or digital cameras and taking photos of elaborate entrees and dishes at New York City restaurants.

This growing trend is commonly known as foodstagram, a photo taken on a cellphone and quickly posted online.

"With the advent of social media, it just became that people like food porn," said Steven Hall, PR representative for Bouley restaurant. "People really love looking at pictures of food."

Some restaurants are cracking down on snap-happy guests. The New York Times reports that owners of upscale restaurants like Fat Duck, Le Bernardin and Per Se "discourage flash photography" by their guests.

Gerald San Jose, media manager for Per Se, said the restaurant "does not have a no-photography policy, although if guests do photograph, Per Se asks that they refrain from using flash and be discreet so as to not disturb the experience of other guests."

Le Bernardin agrees, saying, "Flash photography disturbs other diners."

David Bouley, the head chef at Bouley, does not discourage photography, but instead invites guests into his kitchen for pictures. Hall said Bouley doesn't "really enforce it. If there are people that are taking pictures then they take pictures in the kitchen." "He [Bouley] makes customers a part of the dining experience," said Hall. "He's always welcomed people into his kitchen. They love it. He loves it."

So far, the informal ban has not made its way to the New York State Restaurant Association, which includes 5,000 restaurants in the New York metro area. Andrew Moesel, spokesman for the NYSRA, says the issue is not something that's on the organization's radar.

I'd admit flash photography can be annoying and kill the ambience of a well light place, but I don't agree with a ban. You are the guest of the place, I wouldn't tell my guest that they couldn't take photos in my home for dinner.

But I can understand if you taking about a huge DSLR and flash attachment.

 

[Sye d'Burns]

I could see some restaurants not wanting flashes ruining the experience of those sitting around the picture takers. No real problems with it in that sense. If it were an outright ban of all photography, regardless of a lack of flashes and in a silent mode, I would perhaps be more ambivalent.

 

[katsubento]

Flash photography I can understand. Banning someone taking a pic of their food? No.

 

[DiscoJer]

Does that article mention any restaurants that mean in general, not just flash photos?

Some restaurants are cracking down on snap-happy guests. The New York Times reports that owners of upscale restaurants like Fat Duck, Le Bernardin and Per Se "discourage flash photography" by their guests.

That article kind of is misleading. It says they are cracking down, but in the next sentence only mentions flash photography

 

[Zaptruder]

Annoying article title.

Most simply want guests to be considerate of the dining experience of others; by not using flash and or noisy cameras.

There's one that's cited as banning all photography; but understandably, it's an exclusive members club... so you probably have famous people going there, and they don't want twitterazzi interrupting their dining experience.

Which is all pretty sensible really.

 

[Skel1ingt0n]

I hate flashes and I hate people who talk on their phone while eating. Both things should be banned at a high-dollar restaurant as to not disturb other guests.

Non-flash photography and general texting/etc? Sure, have a blast!

 

[f0nz0]

I hate flashes and I hate people who talk on their phone while eating. Both things should be banned at a high-dollar restaurant as to not disturb other guests.

Non-flash photography and general texting/etc? Sure, have a blast!

I'm for banning flashes, but what's the difference between someone talking on the phone (as long as it's in a normal talking voice, and not brash) vs someone talking to another person at the table?

 

[way more]

Greatest civil rights violation since the TWA took my large bottle of Pert Plus


-or-


"I feel a great disturbance in Brooklyn, as if millions of hipsters suddenly cried out in terror, and were suddenly silenced."

 

[Liamario]

I noticed this flash photography thing while eating, the last time I was out. It is very annoying.

 

[OnkelC]

So this is actually a "ban" of using flash for photos, not taking pictures per se (sic). Totally acceptable IMHO.

 

[XANDER CAGE]

Asking people not to use flash is totally fine.

 

[Zaraki_Kenpachi]

Man, ABC couldn't think of a more misleading title than that? Seems it's just a ban on using flash which is fine, not that they're made people are taking pictures of their food or something.

 

[Deified Data]

I'm fine with them discouraging flash photography. I can imagine how it would become obnoxious.

 

[Skel1ingt0n]

I'm for banning flashes, but what's the difference between someone talking on the phone (as long as it's in a normal talking voice, and not brash) vs someone talking to another person at the table?

I suppose nothing; but it often seems like those talking on the phone are louder than anyone else. Not always, and not everyone - but often enough that I'm fine just drawing a line in the sand - otherwise the rule wouldn't work at all.

 

[nib95]

Flash photography fair enough, but no photography at all would have meant me not ever eating at that chain. Like they have something to hide or the quality of food isn't up to par or something.

 

[Angry Grimace]

That isn't a ban so much as a "don't be a dick to everyone else" rule.

 

[Aaron]

There should instead be a ban on including flash in smartphones.

 

[Zaptruder]

There should instead be a ban on including flash in smartphones.

Ban you instead. Flash on phones wonderfully doubles as a torchlight.

 

[Hours Left]

It's really a no flash rule as opposed to a "don't take pictures of our food" rule.

 

[Schadenfreude]

Fat Duck sounds like the least fanciest name for a fancy restaurant ever.

 

[LyleLanley]

Flash photography fair enough, but no photography at all would have meant me not ever eating at that chain. Like they have something to hide or the quality of food isn't up to par or something.

The restaurants listed in the article are about as far from chains as you can get and I doubt that the quality of food isn't up to par.

 

[Eusis]

Yeah, the topic's kind of misleading: I'd consider it wrong to not allow photographs period, but FLASH photographs? If I'm in a nice restaurant I'd rather not get annoyed by people taking flash photographs of their food.

 

[Replicant]

After I paid for it, it's my fucking food. I can do whatever I want with it, including taking photographs of it.

Flash photography I can understand but most food photographers would not want to ruin the ambient by using flash in the first place.

 

[Kenka]

Interesting, they presume people who have access to Food Porn are less susceptible to dine in a fine place themselves, just like if their curiosity was satisfied without the very taste of the food ?

 

[tracky_dacks]

 

[Valnen]

I would take them anyway and if they don't like it they can throw me out and not have my money.

These pictures help determine if a restaurant is worth it or not in advance thanks to review sites. Maybe they're afraid about people finding out about their shitty food and using their customers as an excuse. Being expensive doesn't make you good.

 

[Carl]

Surely it's free advertising for them if you say where you're eating? lol

 

[GhostWriter24]

I wholeheartedly agree with this. Eat your fucking food, no one cares about what you've dined on.

 

[CTE]

I wholeheartedly agree with this. Eat your fucking food, no one cares about what you've dined on.

The numerous popular food sites out there say differently. Many people like to have good pics with the reviews.