LEO/LHB Eats: Something scary this way comes

[Robin Garr]

i've got to ask, because it's been bothering me for far too long.

You know, I didn't bother to answer this for a while because it really, really irritated me. I just plain can't imagine what kind of thinking would prompt anyone to skip a review because they don't like the pictures.

Short answer: When LEO takes the picture (you can tell this because the credit line will say "LEO Photo by ... name" and the name won't be mine), I pull it from their Website. LEO's Website is done for them by a local PR firm as a free service, and it's not honestly the best around. The photographer (usually Nicole Pullen) is a professional, and she uses a digital SLR, I'm sure. But by the time the photo has been optimized for newsprint, then grabbed for a tiny Web shot, then I pull it off the LEO site for re-use, it's pretty battered. I figure it's better than nothing.

When I shoot the photos, I use my own Nikon D100 digital SLR. While I'm a words guy first and a photo guy second, I've run a few miles of film through SLRs over years in the news biz and won a few awards for photos as well as words. I know what I'm doing, I start with high-res originals and size/optimize them for the Web properly, using Photoshop.

Again, if anybody out there is <i>really</i> inane enough to pass on reading one of my reviews because they don't like the photos, I don't know what to tell them.

Any questions?

[Robin Garr]

Whoa....y'all are worrying about camera shots and not giving any thought to the amount of toxins in sweetbreads? Hmmm...

I'm not worried about camera shots <i>or</i> toxins in sweetbreads. I googled "sweetbreads toxins health" and didn't come up with anything, either, other than one or two notes about purines and that people subject to gout should avoid organ meats. Care to tell us more?

Whoa....y'all are worrying about camera shots and not giving any thought to the amount of toxins in sweetbreads? Hmmm...

I'm not worried about camera shots <i>or</i> toxins in sweetbreads. I googled "sweetbreads toxins health" and didn't come up with anything, either, other than one or two notes about purines and that people subject to gout should avoid organ meats. Care to tell us more?

I, too, am not worried about either. Thinking about the functions of the thymus and the liver, it's the liver I would worry about (but don't either).

When I googled "thymus toxins" I only found that the French banned the sale of sweetbreads during the mad cow disease scare of 2005, but note that it was only the French (not even the British where the disease apparently originated) and they also banned the sale of T-bone steaks! Mon Dieu!!

As much as we might like to conduct ourselves by the old book cover adage, everyone judges on appearances. It's just human nature. If quality of photos didn't matter, magazine would still be on newsprint instead of glossy modern printing.

I can understand Ethan's concern from a professional point of view. The appearance of a chef's food is important enough that accompanying words, no matter how glowing, won't be enough to overcome a terrible picture for many readers. In the end it affects the chef more than the reviewer.

[Robin Garr]

a terrible picture

I'm not sure I'd go that far. Nor was I aware that the character of the review (glowing or hateful) had anything to do with the issue here, which related to whether it makes any sense to avoid reading a review (or anything else) if the accompanying picture doesn't grab you.

Whoa....y'all are worrying about camera shots and not giving any thought to the amount of toxins in sweetbreads? Hmmm...

what "toxins".

a terrible picture

I'm not sure I'd go that far. Nor was I aware that the character of the review (glowing or hateful) had anything to do with the issue here, which related to whether it makes any sense to avoid reading a review (or anything else) if the accompanying picture doesn't grab you.

Robin, I wasn't calling any picture in particular terrible. The statement wasn't "That's a terrible picture", it was a general statement describing the importance of picture quality. Though I'll be honest, I really can't tell what I'm looking at in that picture from Palermo, and it doesn't look particularly enticing.

As for the character of the review, while it may not have been the dominant point (nor was it even the dominant point of my statement), it is certainly relevant. The purpose of the review is to convey a critique to the reader, yes? Obviously the content of the review is the most important thing. You write the review, you want people to read it and be informed about a restaurant. The reader, however, first sees the photo. If the photo is of such a quality that the food presented looks unappetizing, then they could possibly skip reading the review. The review could be glowing or hateful, but the reader isn't thinking that way. They see something unappetizing, have an off the cuff reaction, and move on before bothering to read the review.

If someone gets a great review, I'd assume they want people to read it. If it's accompanied by an poor picture, they could move on without ever seeing the first positive word. And no one wants that. Not you, and not the chef. Is it right? No, it's horribly wrong, but people do it all the time. It's how our brains work, and in the increasingly fast paced society in which we live, it's very very common.

[Robin Garr]

Robin, I wasn't calling any picture in particular terrible. The statement wasn't "That's a terrible picture", it was a general statement describing the importance of picture quality.

Thanks for a thoughtful post, Aaron. I was just feeling cranky, didn't mean to shoot the messenger. Or anybody else.

I'll shaddap now ...

Robin, I wasn't calling any picture in particular terrible. The statement wasn't "That's a terrible picture", it was a general statement describing the importance of picture quality. Though I'll be honest, I really can't tell what I'm looking at in that picture from Palermo, and it doesn't look particularly enticing.



If someone gets a great review, I'd assume they want people to read it. If it's accompanied by an poor picture, they could move on without ever seeing the first positive word. And no one wants that. Not you, and not the chef. Is it right? No, it's horribly wrong, but people do it all the time. It's how our brains work, and in the increasingly fast paced society in which we live, it's very very common.

my sentiments exactly.


i figured it was a mix of cut and paste, and a good amount of middle man traffic with the images themselves.

I didn't mean to say i don't read the reviews, but i know damn well that the average reader wants glitzy, glossy polished looking photo quality these days.

I read a number of food blogs, some with no photos at all.
But the ones that are typically the most enjoyable are the ones with nice clear photos.
(Ideas in Food comes to mind)


it's not to say that the photos make the reporting better, but as a reader... it's nice to be able to put a discernible picture in my head - based on the writing and the accompanying photo.

other cases in point:
The Maido review - does Toki have a face?
Satay at August Moon - is it a large, singular mass of meat with numerous sticks coming out of it, or are they singular skewers?






All i'm saying is...

when wings from the Back Door




look more edible and inviting than satay






what favors does this do for the readers to be enticed to venture out and try sweetbreads (or 'what is that on the plate?')





...and what favors does that do for operators whom favorable reviews oftentimes create an surge in business?




I'm not saying that the photos would put off anyone to not read them at all (i said 'almost' in my original post).

I'm just saying that it'd seem that with LEO and LHB working together as a joint reporting voice, that it'd be not entirely too difficult to get higher res. master copies from the LEO, their PR company, or the photography... being that the articles you're writing (for them!) are also being syndicated on your website as well (with credit and cross referencing to the LEO all abound)





my apologies if my initial commentary came of as saying: 'what, no pictures? no pretty pictures? to hell with them! i ain't reading this!'; because in no way was i implying that.


i just think that with the readers perceived level of expectation for quality journalism, their is a perceived level of quality across the board with the journalism as a whole.

When the photos of the outside of a building look great, but the food photos are blurry and unidentifiable... i mean, come on.






- your local restaurant staff advocate, signing off.

i've got to ask, because it's been bothering me for far too long. the reporting is fine, but why do the photos always look like they were shot on an incredibly dated camera photo? seriously, it makes the articles look lackluster.in fact, it almost puts me off enough i don't bother reading unless it's a restaurant/subject i'm very interested in. by my estimates, it's either super poor camera quality, or a bad re-sizing job with an even worse program. hate to break it down like this, but even though the CJ has a professional photo team, even when their photos look bad, they look 10x better than the best photos on LHB articles. at least the photos look crisp and don't look like an oversized, stretched out thumbnail image. a 5.0+ megapixel camera won't run you over $100 these days. no image would be better than a bad one. this from a readers point of view, and from a professional.... i'd hate to see my food look that bad in photo-quality, it does little favors.) 2 cents.

Is it a poor quality camera or the lack of a "food stylist" that affects the images? In my opinion the most incredible photos of food are in Louisville Food and Dining mag. They're better than photos in Southern Living, Wine Enthusiast and Bon Appetit. Is it the camera? I thought it to be a combination of mostly lighting, "food stylist" and photographer skills and, to a some degree, the equipment.

Louisville Food and Dining mag's food photos are (for the most part) all shot by Dan Dry.
He's literally a one man show. Does all his own set up, packs in his own gear. The 'food styling' done by the chef, with input from Dan regarding what would be the best for photo, and adding in lots of little tricks to make the product look better on film.

Most cuts of meat in professional food photos?
nice light spray down with vegetable oil to make them glisten and not get dry while shooting the photos.
in fact, it's likely that the food is hardly cooked at all, to preserve color and moisture.

Equipment (aside from lighting) has little to do with end product as much as the photographers skill does.
The more higher end the camera gets, the more control you have, and the finer the adjustments can be made. In a digital world, this also means that the files themselves would be at a much much higher resolution that your basic consumer models.

How were the photos taken on your website? Surely you had more than just a high end camera (?)

I'm pretty sure you're referring to the photos on my blog (?).

The majority of those photos were all shot with point and shoot digital cameras - seriously nothing special (one is actually just a 2.0 megapixel model probably worth $50 now).
Proper lighting real is the key, and i can't stress this enough!
Over flash on white plates adds a huge amount of over saturation and washout, where the plate becomes stark white, and everything else looks like it's got a spotlight on it.

I usually find something to raise a plate as high as a can, directly under lighting (usually florescent) put it on some white linen (often enlisting someone to hang another behind the plate as a backdrop) and shoot with the flash off.

I correct the brightness and contrast in Photoshop CS2, and occasionally do a little color correction on some images (boosting blues and lowering yellows in some light situations).



for comparative purposes:

this photo was shot by Peng Looi in the prep area at Asiatique, for newasiancuisine.com on a Nikon D70 (pricey!)-






I shot this one in my kitchen on the aforementioned $50 camera, with a Mag Light (seriously) as my auxiliary lighting-

[Robin Garr]

I'm not saying that the photos would put off anyone to not read them at all (i said 'almost' in my original post).

I'm just saying that it'd seem that with LEO and LHB working together as a joint reporting voice, that it'd be not entirely too difficult to get higher res. master copies from the LEO, their PR company, or the photography... being that the articles you're writing (for them!) are also being syndicated on your website as well (with credit and cross referencing to the LEO all abound)

Thanks. I feel better already.

Okay, I'm listening. I've asked LEO to provide me the photographer's original for the photo of Frank Elbl with sweetbreads, which I have cropped, sized, optimized for Web display and got about all out of it that I can. Please note that it is not intended to be a "food styling" shot, and I don't anticipate that LEO (or LouisvilleHotBytes) is ever likely to use food styling for review photos. Philosophically, some might argue that such an approach would be fundamentally wrong for a review, because it pretties up the creation and doesn't show it as it actually came to the table. Nicole's shots frequently, like this one, feature a chef, a dish and a snippet of the restaurant's atmosphere, which strikes me as a nice way to capture a review.

On occasion I've snapped food shots - usually with the 2 meg still feature on a high-quality Canon vidcam (for portability) rather than my Nikon. Those don't purport to be food-styled, but I'd assert that as an experienced photographer with modern, high-end equipment, I can do a credible job of it. That being said, after taking food shots for a while, I pretty much decided not to keep doing that for a variety of reasons, some of the things you mentioned (blasted-out whites and contrasts in plate shots) being among them.

I'm also reluctant to do inside photography during dining reviews because I prefer to keep a low profile, with the possible exception of a situation where I know very well that everyone in the room already knows who I am, so anonymity is not a possibility.

I can't over-emphasize, though, that when it comes to my shots, I have quality equipment (two high-resolution digital SLRs and one quality HD vidcam and Photoshop 7 on four computers) and I know how to use it.

Not that it matters, by the way, but you might be interested to know that the relationship between LouisvilleHotBytes and LEO is a bit different from the usual free-lance writing situation. LouisvilleHotBytes provides LEO with food-and-dining content under the agreement that this content is shared, runs in both publications on the same day, and that we aggressively link to and promote each other. Content remains copyright by LouisvilleHotBytes.com, and I'm responsible for it.