Well I did:

http://i1.tinypic.com/o87406.jpg

I used chicken sausage spiked with a little Mexican chorizo and minced
garlic. Also on the plate are a slaw made with shredded cabbage onto
which I poured a warm garlic/salt/minced red pepper/cumin/olive oil
infusion.

Those are soba noodles underneath the balls. Heheh. Underneath the
balls. Heh

The sauce is made from reduced turkey stock (last of it in the house),
a little chipotle powder, some smoked paprika, some Chinese cooking
wine, a couple of bay leaves, garlic, cumin, and a bit of coconut
milk. (I was thinking of a soup I had once at Gloria's, a Salvadoran
place in Dallas -- the bay and coconut combo came from there.)

Jicama strips and chopped cilantro lie on top of the balls (heh). It
was really good. Asian/Latin fusion.
--
modom

"My baby's got no clothes
'Cause she's makin' chicken soup."

-- Chuck E. Weiss

"modom" > wrote in message
...
> Well I did:
>
> http://i1.tinypic.com/o87406.jpg
>
> I used chicken sausage spiked with a little Mexican chorizo and minced

I see a dark glob on the right. Cold that be them? You need a little work
on the photography as the lighting is poor.

On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 03:37:44 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski" >
wrote:

>
>"modom" > wrote in message
.. .
>> Well I did:
>>
>> http://i1.tinypic.com/o87406.jpg
>>
>> I used chicken sausage spiked with a little Mexican chorizo and minced
>
>I see a dark glob on the right. Cold that be them? You need a little work
>on the photography as the lighting is poor.
>
Is this better?

http://i1.tinypic.com/o89non.jpg
--
modom

"My baby's got no clothes
'Cause she's makin' chicken soup."

-- Chuck E. Weiss

"modom" > wrote in message
>>
> Is this better?
>
> http://i1.tinypic.com/o89non.jpg
> --

Yes. Sausage ball details are still somewhat hidden but overall you can see
more of everything..

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
> "modom" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Well I did:
> >
> > http://i1.tinypic.com/o87406.jpg
> >
> > I used chicken sausage spiked with a little Mexican chorizo and minced
>
> I see a dark glob on the right. Cold that be them? You need a little work
> on the photography as the lighting is poor.

Needs a sense of ethetics, he has none... and those horrendous red/blue
plates gotta go. Food could be good but the slovenly way it's
presented, disasterous.

Sheldon

In article >,
"Edwin Pawlowski" > wrote:
> I see a dark glob on the right. Cold that be them? You need a little work
> on the photography as the lighting is poor.

What are you, Siskel and Ebert? "-)
--
http://www.jamlady.eboard.com, updated 2-19-2006, Yummy! and church review. :-)

1. Don't use red plates; they skew the color balance something fierce.

2. More light. One overhead and diffuse, one oblique and more direct.

3. Focus. Please.

4. Less depth-of-field; i.e., move back and zoom in to fill the frame
instead of zooming out and moving closer.

5. Care in plating. Don't let the food slop all over. Wipe up
smears.

Then maybe, just maybe, food that sounds like it should be appetizing
will look appetizing.

--Blair

modom wrote:
> Is this better?
>
> http://i1.tinypic.com/o89non.jpg

Somewhat, but the red plate and the focus and depth of field are
smudging the entire image.

victoria wrote:
> In article om>,
> says...
>
> > 1. Don't use red plates; they skew the color balance something fierce.
> >
> > 2. More light. One overhead and diffuse, one oblique and more direct.
> >
> > 3. Focus. Please.
> >
> > 4. Less depth-of-field; i.e., move back and zoom in to fill the frame
> > instead of zooming out and moving closer.
> >
> > 5. Care in plating. Don't let the food slop all over. Wipe up
> > smears.
> >
> > Then maybe, just maybe, food that sounds like it should be appetizing
> > will look appetizing.
>
> Oh, give me a break! I'm sorry, but I really don't understand all the hostility and weird comments
> people are making about his food picture posts. So what if the plates are bright (bright and simple is
> better than fussy, hideous patterns) or the photography or plating isn't absolutely perfect - ? I, for one
> (possibly the only one; most posts I have seen have been complaints, but whatever!) enjoy seeing the
> pictures.
>
> Here, maybe this is more to your taste:
> <http://i1.tinypic.com/o9lavt.jpg> Beautiful, isn't it?

Amen Victoria!

victoria wrote:
> Here, maybe this is more to your taste:
> <http://i1.tinypic.com/o9lavt.jpg> Beautiful, isn't it?

No. The food looks like shit. And his shouldn't. If he learned to
take a picture, it would probably look very appetizing. Or at least
slightly so.

--Blair

victoria wrote:
>
> Here, maybe this is more to your taste:
> <http://i1.tinypic.com/o9lavt.jpg>

Victoria is a fraud, her buns have no sesame seeds.

Sheldon

modom wrote:
> Lady Lazarus wrote:
>
> > modom claims:
> >>Well I did:
> >>
> >>http://i1.tinypic.com/o87406.jpg
> >
> >This looks no different than that soup pic you posted the other day.
> >Do you realize that each and every one of your dishes look the same?
> >Every time it's the same thing: a sloppy mass covered with jicama
> >strips with some sliced fruit that looks like you retrieved them from
> >the garbage can. I keep clicking on the links in the hope that you'll
> >present something that looks appealing, alas my efforts are in vain.
> >BTW I hope you didn't pay a lot of money for that set of dishes, they
> >are just awful.
>
>What was your motivation for writing what you wrote above? Be honest, now.

She is being honest... something you need to learn, alibi boy. Not
only can't you cook, you can't write. Your writing is as slovenly as
your cooking; all sentence fragments and superfluous commas. It's
impossible to believe that you earn your living as an educator, if so
you're a thief... seems in Texas they ain't too picky.

victoria wrote:
> In article .com>, blair
> "Everything 'looks like shit'" says...
>
> > victoria wrote:
> > > Here, maybe this is more to your taste:
> > > <http://i1.tinypic.com/o9lavt.jpg> Beautiful, isn't it?
> >
> > No. The food looks like shit.
>
> My, what a lovely vocabulary you have! Such good taste! I can certainly see
> why you consider yourself such a fine judge of aesthetics.
>
> > And his shouldn't.
>
> It doesn't. So, *bzzzzzzttt* but thanks for playing anyway!

I know you intend to be a pain in the ass, but your attempt
is falling flat.

Several other people have pointed out the same problems
I did.

And if you don't think that food looks like shit, then
you should bring a minder to meals.

--Blair

On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 05:08:10 -0800, Sheldon wrote:

>
> She is being honest... something you need to learn, alibi boy. Not
> only can't you cook, you can't write. Your writing is as slovenly as
> your cooking; all sentence fragments and superfluous commas. It's
> impossible to believe that you earn your living as an educator, if so
> you're a thief... seems in Texas they ain't too picky.

I think the Lady is a man. TAM at Commerce is not exactly "higher
education." It is an Texas A&M satelite campus.. which means it used to
be a "jr" college that attracted few. So they renamed it in hopes of some
enrollment. SOS ..different name..sorta like the red plate. I think
Commerce was originally supposed to be in Arkansas.

Blair P. Houghton wrote:

> victoria wrote:
> > In article .com>, blair
> > "Everything 'looks like shit'" says...
> >
> > > victoria wrote:
> > > > Here, maybe this is more to your taste:
> > > > <http://i1.tinypic.com/o9lavt.jpg> Beautiful, isn't it?
> > >
> > > No. The food looks like shit.
> >
> > My, what a lovely vocabulary you have! Such good taste! I can certainly see
> > why you consider yourself such a fine judge of aesthetics.
> >
> > > And his shouldn't.
> >
> > It doesn't. So, *bzzzzzzttt* but thanks for playing anyway!
>
> I know you intend to be a pain in the ass, but your attempt
> is falling flat.
>
> Several other people have pointed out the same problems
> I did.
>
> And if you don't think that food looks like shit, then
> you should bring a minder to meals.

Your arrogance knows no bounds does it?
Get off your bleedin high horse and let the guy post. Sure constructive
critisism is useful, but you come across as a knowit all blowhard with
all the subtlety and tact of a train crash. Where are your
communication skills? What are you Simon Cowell or summat?
Doc

On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 15:24:15 GMT, jay > wrote:

>On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 05:08:10 -0800, Sheldon wrote:
>
>>
>> She is being honest... something you need to learn, alibi boy. Not
>> only can't you cook, you can't write. Your writing is as slovenly as
>> your cooking; all sentence fragments and superfluous commas. It's
>> impossible to believe that you earn your living as an educator, if so
>> you're a thief... seems in Texas they ain't too picky.
>
>I think the Lady is a man. TAM at Commerce is not exactly "higher
>education." It is an Texas A&M satelite campus.. which means it used to
>be a "jr" college that attracted few. So they renamed it in hopes of some
>enrollment. SOS ..different name..sorta like the red plate. I think
>Commerce was originally supposed to be in Arkansas.

This is all error. A simple Web search would have set you right, but
it wouldn't have enabled you to spew the ad himonems you appear to
love so dearly.

Anyhow, I don't think I'll continue talking with you.

--
modom

"My baby's got no clothes
'Cause she's makin' chicken soup."

-- Chuck E. Weiss

Dr Hfuhruhurr wrote:
> Your arrogance knows no bounds does it?
> Get off your bleedin high horse and let the guy post. Sure constructive
> critisism is useful, but you come across as a knowit all blowhard with
> all the subtlety and tact of a train crash. Where are your
> communication skills? What are you Simon Cowell or summat?

Sez the man with no brains.

I gave him a point-by-point list of recommendations for
improving his pictures.

I was attacked for it.

So **** you for piling on late and picking on the
wrong person.

--Blair

On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 12:49:04 -0600, modom wrote:

> On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 15:24:15 GMT, jay > wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 05:08:10 -0800, Sheldon wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> She is being honest... something you need to learn, alibi boy. Not
>>> only can't you cook, you can't write. Your writing is as slovenly as
>>> your cooking; all sentence fragments and superfluous commas. It's
>>> impossible to believe that you earn your living as an educator, if so
>>> you're a thief... seems in Texas they ain't too picky.
>>
>>I think the Lady is a man. TAM at Commerce is not exactly "higher
>>education." It is an Texas A&M satelite campus.. which means it used
>>to be a "jr" college that attracted few. So they renamed it in hopes of
>>some enrollment. SOS ..different name..sorta like the red plate. I
>>think Commerce was originally supposed to be in Arkansas.
>
> This is all error. A simple Web search would have set you right, but it
> wouldn't have enabled you to spew the ad himonems you appear to love so
> dearly.

Which part was in error? Oh, you mean the Arkansas part.

> Anyhow, I don't think I'll continue talking with you.

ok.. when you drop the next load on the infamous red plate, I
will try not to look.

What's a himonems?

victoria wrote:
> In article .com>,
> says...
>
> > I know you intend to be a pain in the ass, but your attempt
> > is falling flat.
>
> Ah, sorry about that! Being a PITA doesn't come as easily to some of us
> as it does to others.

We can't all be Sheldon.

> > Several other people have pointed out the same problems
> > I did.
>
> Oooh! That makes it right, then. (note: several other people have disagreed
> with you).

No, the fact that it's right makes it right. Keep up.

> > And if you don't think that food looks like shit,
>
> Erm, haven't we already established that - ? Or do you just feel obligated to
> say "shit" at least once in every post?

Why do you insist on trying to correct it? Did someone take
away your hall-monitor badge? Tough shit.

> > then you should bring a minder to meals.
>
> (Thanks for your concern. I can assure you it is unwarranted).

Good. Then we won't have you interfering with constructive
criticism any more.

--Blair

Melba's Jammin' wrote:

> In article >,
> "Edwin Pawlowski" > wrote:
> > I see a dark glob on the right. Cold that be them? You need a little work
> > on the photography as the lighting is poor.
>
> What are you, Siskel and Ebert? "-)


Hey, I'd drop dead from contrition if I even *considered* posting a pic
like that ;-)

Modom's pix are all the same, a mess of congealed stuff on an ugly
plate..could be a menu illustration from the Denny's down in Hell...and
if that's what the grub is like down there I'll be pretty skinny )

When presenting one's "wares" for public consumption 'tis best to be
aware that one is also presenting one's character (you being a "Blue
Ribbon" type 'o gal you take this to heart and act accordingly, I know
you wouldn't dare do a sloppy job and put it out there for the public
to view)...

--
Best
Greg


--
Best
Greg

In article .com>,
"Gregory Morrow" > wrote:

> When presenting one's "wares" for public consumption 'tis best to be
> aware that one is also presenting one's character (you being a "Blue
> Ribbon" type 'o gal you take this to heart and act accordingly, I know
> you wouldn't dare do a sloppy job and put it out there for the public
> to view)...

You're kidding, right? Right?


> --
> Best
> Greg
--
http://www.jamlady.eboard.com, updated 2-19-2006, Yummy! and church review. :-)

victoria wrote:

> Oh, give me a break! I'm sorry, but I really don't understand all the hostility and weird comments
> people are making about his food picture posts. So what if the plates are bright (bright and simple is
> better than fussy, hideous patterns) or the photography or plating isn't absolutely perfect - ?


In this particular case we are not even near "absolutely perfect", more
like "absolutely hideous". I wouldn't want to eat that mess, even
viewing it makes me wanna heave or have the backdoor trots...I wouldn't
serve this to a guest in my home, let alone to myself. Looks like
something you'd see in an early John Waters flick, think specifically
of the very end of _Pink Flamingos_...Baby Jane Hudson wouldn't even
dare serve that muck to her crippled sis Blanche in order to terrorize
her, she's not *that* crazy.

If someone goes to the trouble of cooking a dish, photographing it, and
then posting the pic to a public forum why can't they ponder spending a
few piddly moments on a decent presentation (see my comments to Barb
above "character"}. Modom should consider the criticism here as
constructive and take it a bit to heart, instead we get a parade of the
same - old same - old grotesquely plated "creations".

All this poster's pix should be included in the curriculum of "Food
Styling 101" as examples as to what to *avoid*...

Reminds me of folx who bring boring - ass dishes to functions and then
wonder "Why didn't anybody compliment me on or even eat what I brought?
I'm SHOCKED!". I'm thinking "HEY, mebbe if you'd goosed up that PLAIN
'ole white rice or box mac 'n cheeze or cous - cous or sheet cake a
little you'd get some takers, doesn't take but a sec to sprinkle some
paprika or chopped parsley or colored sprinkles or some such garnish on
a dish...". Me, a dish won't leave the house unless it's nicely
garnished, I not only get the constant "too pretty to eat" comments but
my vittles are eagerly awaited and rapidly devoured. And I'm just some
amateur mope, not a culinary professional at all. I started out bland
and boring too, just learned a bit along the way...

Heck, I'll be sending over some gumbo and sides to one of the
bartenders at my local groggery tomorrow night, you can bet it will all
be nicely garnished even though it'll be in plastic take -out
containers...I'd be proud to send it to Lucullus himself

Hey, you put stuff out there gotta be prepared to take some
flack...goes with the territory.

--
Best
Greg

Melba's Jammin' wrote:

> In article .com>,
> "Gregory Morrow" > wrote:
>
> > When presenting one's "wares" for public consumption 'tis best to be
> > aware that one is also presenting one's character (you being a "Blue
> > Ribbon" type 'o gal you take this to heart and act accordingly, I know
> > you wouldn't dare do a sloppy job and put it out there for the public
> > to view)...
>
> You're kidding, right? Right?


Hey you don't go to all that work and win all those awards for nothing,
right?

;-)

--
Best
Greg

modom wrote:

> On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 19:33:02 GMT, Lady Lazarus >
> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 21:19:37 -0600, in rec.food.cooking, modom
> > hit the crackpipe and declared:
> >>Well I did:
> >>
> >>http://i1.tinypic.com/o87406.jpg
> >
> >This looks no different than that soup pic you posted the other day.
> >Do you realize that each and every one of your dishes look the same?
> >Every time it's the same thing: a sloppy mass covered with jicama
> >strips with some sliced fruit that looks like you retrieved them from
> >the garbage can. I keep clicking on the links in the hope that you'll
> >present something that looks appealing, alas my efforts are in vain.
> >BTW I hope you didn't pay a lot of money for that set of dishes, they
> >are just awful.
>
> You speak as though your opinions were laws of nature. And that's
> never a good idea.


Hey there Diogenes, *you* put the pic out and solicited opinions...


> Let me ask you something: What was your motivation for writing what
> you wrote above? Be honest, now. Look into what you have in your
> chest that passes for a heart and tell me what you gain from such
> contrafactual insults. Do you feel at all better when you behave so?
> Is it an ego thing, maybe? Not enough warm fuzzies in your day?


See, you are now engaging in the Usenet equivalent of "If you don't
UNCONDITIONALLY adore me I'm going to SHOOT my pet DOG/DROWN my pet
KITTEN/BEAT my KIDS..."


> Anyhow, you're a few days late with this bit of foolishness. The
> plates have been explained twice.


You can get *far* more presentable plates for two bits or less at *any*
thrift shop...I've seen better sitting out at the curb awaiting the
trash hauler. A generic cheapo paper plate even would be a momentous
step up in the "style department"

--
Best
Greg

On 25 Feb 2006 14:21:24 -0800, "Gregory Morrow"
> wrote:

>
>Melba's Jammin' wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> "Edwin Pawlowski" > wrote:
>> > I see a dark glob on the right. Cold that be them? You need a little work
>> > on the photography as the lighting is poor.
>>
>> What are you, Siskel and Ebert? "-)

>Hey, I'd drop dead from contrition if I even *considered* posting a pic
>like that ;-)
>
>Modom's pix are all the same, a mess of congealed stuff on an ugly
>plate..could be a menu illustration from the Denny's down in Hell...and
>if that's what the grub is like down there I'll be pretty skinny )

The particular image at the start of this thread included a slaw
variation, some noodles with a reduced stock sauce, and a half dozen
breaded chicken sausage balls. Setting aside the red plate, which has
gotten so many people exercised of late (and which I still find
amusing), what would you do with those things on a plate? How would
you arrange them?

I put the meatballs on the noodles and added a little sauce. What
would you differently?

And why do you say congealed? Is it the noodles? The slaw?

Or is it the ingredients? Organic chicken sausage, Mexican chorizo,
crushed whole wheat crackers, homemade stock, coconut milk, smoked
chiles, garlic, cumin, buckwheat noodles, jicama, cilantro and so
forth. Are these not right? Deserving of damnation?

Don't look if it's painful, but here's the link again if you want to
refresh you memory: http://i1.tinypic.com/o89non.jpg
--
modom

"My baby's got no clothes
'Cause she's makin' chicken soup."

-- Chuck E. Weiss

In article . com>,
"Gregory Morrow" > wrote:


> Hey, you put stuff out there gotta be prepared to take some
> flack...goes with the territory.

Thanks for your comments, Sheldon.

--
Dan Abel

Petaluma, California, USA

"modom" > wrote in message
...
> On 25 Feb 2006 14:21:24 -0800, "Gregory Morrow"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>Melba's Jammin' wrote:
>>
>>> In article >,
>>> "Edwin Pawlowski" > wrote:
>>> > I see a dark glob on the right. Cold that be them? You need a
>>> > little work
>>> > on the photography as the lighting is poor.
>>>
>>> What are you, Siskel and Ebert? "-)
>
>>Hey, I'd drop dead from contrition if I even *considered* posting a pic
>>like that ;-)
>>
>>Modom's pix are all the same, a mess of congealed stuff on an ugly
>>plate..could be a menu illustration from the Denny's down in Hell...and
>>if that's what the grub is like down there I'll be pretty skinny )
>
> The particular image at the start of this thread included a slaw
> variation, some noodles with a reduced stock sauce, and a half dozen
> breaded chicken sausage balls. Setting aside the red plate, which has
> gotten so many people exercised of late (and which I still find
> amusing), what would you do with those things on a plate? How would
> you arrange them?
>
> I put the meatballs on the noodles and added a little sauce. What
> would you differently?
>
> And why do you say congealed? Is it the noodles? The slaw?
>
> Or is it the ingredients? Organic chicken sausage, Mexican chorizo,
> crushed whole wheat crackers, homemade stock, coconut milk, smoked
> chiles, garlic, cumin, buckwheat noodles, jicama, cilantro and so
> forth. Are these not right? Deserving of damnation?
>
> Don't look if it's painful, but here's the link again if you want to
> refresh you memory: http://i1.tinypic.com/o89non.jpg
> --

I believe the point being made is that people have no interest in seeing
photos of ordinary looking food. Much food, no matter how delicious, is not
that interesting to look at. I know that 99% of my meals fall into that
category. I looked at your photo and while I have no doubt that it was a
terrific meal, I am truly puzzled as to why you would think anyone wants to
see a photo of it. We are all accustomed to seeing food photos in magazines
and cookbooks that are set up by professionaln food stylists and
photographers. Who the hell wants to see photos of the food we ordinary
mortals prepare?


--
Peter Aitken
Visit my recipe and kitchen myths page at www.pgacon.com/cooking.htm

Dan Abel wrote:

> In article . com>,
> "Gregory Morrow" > wrote:
>
>
> > Hey, you put stuff out there gotta be prepared to take some
> > flack...goes with the territory.
>
> Thanks for your comments, Sheldon.


Is what I said not true, Dan...???


--
Best
Greg

Gregory Morrow wrote:
> modom wrote:

>>Anyhow, you're a few days late with this bit of foolishness. The
>>plates have been explained twice.
>
>
>
> You can get *far* more presentable plates for two bits or less at *any*
> thrift shop...I've seen better sitting out at the curb awaiting the
> trash hauler. A generic cheapo paper plate even would be a momentous
> step up in the "style department"
>


I like the red plate. But it does make it almost impossible to take a
decent picture of the food. A plain white plate would have been more
photogenic and allowed us to see the food better. The food looks pretty
good if I *imagine* it in better focus on a white or yellow plate. ;-)
The yellow plate would make it hard to adjust the white balance if
you're using a digital camera, so you're better off using white or white
with a simple border.

(I know I'm a couple of days late, but I was very sick Thursday and most
of Friday and I'm just now catching up.)

Bob

In article >,
Christine Dabney > wrote:

> On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 00:42:20 GMT, "Peter Aitken"
> > wrote:
>
> >Who the hell wants to see photos of the food we ordinary
> >mortals prepare?
> I do.


I do also. Those who don't, shouldn't look. That isn't difficult.

--
Dan Abel

Petaluma, California, USA

In article .com>,
"Gregory Morrow" > wrote:

> Dan Abel wrote:
>
> > In article . com>,
> > "Gregory Morrow" > wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Hey, you put stuff out there gotta be prepared to take some
> > > flack...goes with the territory.
> >
> > Thanks for your comments, Sheldon.
>
>
> Is what I said not true, Dan...???

I think that it is a matter of opinion. I thought the food looked good,
although maybe the photo didn't meet everybody's standards.

I also thought that your post seemed entirely too similar to those of
Sheldon. Perhaps that was unkind.

--
Dan Abel

Petaluma, California, USA

Dan Abel wrote:

> In article .com>,
> "Gregory Morrow" > wrote:
>
> > Dan Abel wrote:
> >
> > > In article . com>,
> > > "Gregory Morrow" > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > Hey, you put stuff out there gotta be prepared to take some
> > > > flack...goes with the territory.
> > >
> > > Thanks for your comments, Sheldon.
> >
> >
> > Is what I said not true, Dan...???
>
> I think that it is a matter of opinion. I thought the food looked good,
> although maybe the photo didn't meet everybody's standards.
>
> I also thought that your post seemed entirely too similar to those of
> Sheldon. Perhaps that was unkind.


Nope, I am not trying to "imitate" anyone...I endeavour to be the same
all over the spectrum of Usenet ;-)

[And Sheldon's posts can stand on their own :-) ]

--
Best
Greg

zxcvbob wrote:

> Gregory Morrow wrote:
> > modom wrote:
>
> >>Anyhow, you're a few days late with this bit of foolishness. The
> >>plates have been explained twice.
> >
> >
> >
> > You can get *far* more presentable plates for two bits or less at *any*
> > thrift shop...I've seen better sitting out at the curb awaiting the
> > trash hauler. A generic cheapo paper plate even would be a momentous
> > step up in the "style department"
> >
>
>
> I like the red plate. But it does make it almost impossible to take a
> decent picture of the food. A plain white plate would have been more
> photogenic and allowed us to see the food better. The food looks pretty
> good if I *imagine* it in better focus on a white or yellow plate. ;-)


That kind of focus causes me to be vertiginous ;-)


> The yellow plate would make it hard to adjust the white balance if
> you're using a digital camera, so you're better off using white or white
> with a simple border.


I have a pink serving platter (a hand - me - down), I've used it for
very little because it frankly to me is just not a very appetizing
backdrop for most foods. However it''s okay for serving colorful fruit
stuff and also it's great to serve sushi on. The black nori of the
sushi rolls contrasts very nicely with the pink platter, it exudes a
very 50's air . All that is needed to complete the tableau is poodle
dyed with pink polka dots (like Jayne Mansfield had in _Will Success
Spoil Rock Hunter?_)


> (I know I'm a couple of days late, but I was very sick Thursday and most
> of Friday and I'm just now catching up.)


This is proving to be one of the more "exciting" threads of late )

--
Be Well
Greg

In article >,
"Peter Aitken" > wrote:
>
>I looked at your photo and while I have no doubt that it was a
> terrific meal, I am truly puzzled as to why you would think anyone
> wants to see a photo of it. We are all accustomed to seeing food
> photos in magazines and cookbooks that are set up by professionaln
> food stylists and photographers.

>Who the hell wants to see photos of the food we ordinary mortals
>prepare?


Well who the hell is forcing you to click on the link? Jesus, Mary, and
Joseph! I know a young man who is interested in seeing pics of food
prepared by ordinary mortals. He likes to look at recipes that have
pictures so he can see what the outcome might look like. Tickles his
tastebuds, I guess. And I do not understand why Michael is under such
attack. If his photos are so troubling to you why in hell do you keep
looking at them? Save yourself some anxiety and take a pass.
--
http://www.jamlady.eboard.com, updated 2-19-2006, Yummy! and church review. :-)

In article . com>,
"Gregory Morrow" > wrote:

> Melba's Jammin' wrote:
>
> > In article .com>,
> > "Gregory Morrow" > wrote:
> >
> > > When presenting one's "wares" for public consumption 'tis best to be
> > > aware that one is also presenting one's character (you being a "Blue
> > > Ribbon" type 'o gal you take this to heart and act accordingly, I know
> > > you wouldn't dare do a sloppy job and put it out there for the public
> > > to view)...
> >
> > You're kidding, right? Right?
>
>
> Hey you don't go to all that work and win all those awards for nothing,
> right?
>
> ;-)

Pretty much. They're good for conversation but I'm sure as heck not
getting rich off any of them. Dammit.

And I still don't understand the paragraph above that begins, "When
presenting one's "wares" for public. . . ." Honest to Alex, Greg, I
don't understand. 'Splain it to me. Are you talking about my Fair
entries? The food pictures that *I* put on my website? They're sure as
hell no prizewinners.
--
http://www.jamlady.eboard.com, updated 2-19-2006, Yummy! and church review. :-)

In article >,
zxcvbob > wrote:

> The yellow plate would make it hard to adjust the white balance if
> you're using a digital camera, so you're better off using white or white
> with a simple border.

No, no. 40% grey. Jeez, whatta buncha putzes.
--
http://www.jamlady.eboard.com, updated 2-19-2006, Yummy! and church review. :-)

On Sat 25 Feb 2006 05:42:20p, Thus Spake Zarathustra, or was it Peter
Aitken?

> "modom" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 25 Feb 2006 14:21:24 -0800, "Gregory Morrow"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Melba's Jammin' wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article >,
>>>> "Edwin Pawlowski" > wrote:
>>>> > I see a dark glob on the right. Cold that be them? You need a
>>>> > little work
>>>> > on the photography as the lighting is poor.
>>>>
>>>> What are you, Siskel and Ebert? "-)
>>
>>>Hey, I'd drop dead from contrition if I even *considered* posting a pic
>>>like that ;-)
>>>
>>>Modom's pix are all the same, a mess of congealed stuff on an ugly
>>>plate..could be a menu illustration from the Denny's down in Hell...and
>>>if that's what the grub is like down there I'll be pretty skinny )
>>
>> The particular image at the start of this thread included a slaw
>> variation, some noodles with a reduced stock sauce, and a half dozen
>> breaded chicken sausage balls. Setting aside the red plate, which has
>> gotten so many people exercised of late (and which I still find
>> amusing), what would you do with those things on a plate? How would
>> you arrange them?
>>
>> I put the meatballs on the noodles and added a little sauce. What
>> would you differently?
>>
>> And why do you say congealed? Is it the noodles? The slaw?
>>
>> Or is it the ingredients? Organic chicken sausage, Mexican chorizo,
>> crushed whole wheat crackers, homemade stock, coconut milk, smoked
>> chiles, garlic, cumin, buckwheat noodles, jicama, cilantro and so
>> forth. Are these not right? Deserving of damnation?
>>
>> Don't look if it's painful, but here's the link again if you want to
>> refresh you memory: http://i1.tinypic.com/o89non.jpg --
>
> I believe the point being made is that people have no interest in seeing
> photos of ordinary looking food. Much food, no matter how delicious, is
> not that interesting to look at. I know that 99% of my meals fall into
> that category. I looked at your photo and while I have no doubt that it
> was a terrific meal, I am truly puzzled as to why you would think anyone
> wants to see a photo of it. We are all accustomed to seeing food photos
> in magazines and cookbooks that are set up by professionaln food
> stylists and photographers. Who the hell wants to see photos of the food
> we ordinary mortals prepare?

Maybe because we want to see something from real life? I've seen enough
turkeys that were painted with varnish, fruits and veggies that were
sprayed with glycerin and mineral oil, and shortcakes that were adorned
with shaving cream. I think I'd rather see something I could eat.

Hey, it's not like the picture just pops up before your very eyes like it
does on a web page. You object? Don't click!

--
Wayne Boatwright o¿o
____________________

BIOYA

Melba's Jammin' wrote:

> In article . com>,
> "Gregory Morrow" > wrote:
>
> > Melba's Jammin' wrote:
> >
> > > In article .com>,
> > > "Gregory Morrow" > wrote:
> > >
> > > > When presenting one's "wares" for public consumption 'tis best to be
> > > > aware that one is also presenting one's character (you being a "Blue
> > > > Ribbon" type 'o gal you take this to heart and act accordingly, I know
> > > > you wouldn't dare do a sloppy job and put it out there for the public
> > > > to view)...
> > >
> > > You're kidding, right? Right?
> >
> >
> > Hey you don't go to all that work and win all those awards for nothing,
> > right?
> >
> > ;-)
>
> Pretty much. They're good for conversation but I'm sure as heck not
> getting rich off any of them. Dammit.
>
> And I still don't understand the paragraph above that begins, "When
> presenting one's "wares" for public. . . ." Honest to Alex, Greg, I
> don't understand. 'Splain it to me.


Well Barb, you seem to put some thought and work into your fair entries
and most everything you do, you are no slacker. That's what I meant
(it's a *compliment*)...


Are you talking about my Fair
> entries? The food pictures that *I* put on my website? They're sure as
> hell no prizewinners.


Nonetheless they are still nice to look at ;-)

--
Best
Greg

Michael "Dog3" Lonergan wrote:

> This thread is a crack up. Michael posts a pic and all of a sudden the
> armchair photo critics come out of the woodwork. Everyone is entitled to
> his/her opinion but if the pics are so painful to look at, they just don't
> need to click the link. I like looking at the pics and I like the pics on
> your website. Oy... you should see the quality of pics I've posted in ABF.


Kinda like "Show 'n Tell" in grade school when the meanies made fun of
the kids that brought lame stuff to school to "share"...

--
Best
Greg

Melba's Jammin' wrote:
> In article >,
> zxcvbob > wrote:
>
>
>>The yellow plate would make it hard to adjust the white balance if
>>you're using a digital camera, so you're better off using white or white
>>with a simple border.
>
>
> No, no. 40% grey. Jeez, whatta buncha putzes.


Gray plates, or do you mean using a Kodak gray card?

Bob