If you live in Canada or are Canadian, yes, it is that time of the year…. If you are NOT from Canada or do not have a Canadian connection, today is Canada Day! Despite some crazy things that have occured in the last 365 days, some great, like the Winter Olympic Games, some embarrasing, like what happened during the G8/G20 (though I wonder how/why those who incited these “riots” can love this country… Assuming, that is, if they are Canadian to being with), I will have to say I love this country.

My last year post, I made reference to a hilarious song called “Canadian Please” and, today, it is as funny as it was last year. For this year, I was thinking what is most appropriate… While several things came to my head, I think this song fits the best… Young Artists For Haiti – Wavin’ Flag

(As for runner up, I was thinking on food, specifically, what dish represents Canada – with poutine being the front runner. So, just in case, if you are not Canadian, you might want to check this video blog series by fellow blogger Mijune of Follow Me Foodie about exactly that, poutine in Davie Street in Vancouver!)

“One of the most “interesting” food related news in Vancouver is that of rumours/hearsay/almost certain that Vancouver City Hall will be allowing street food vendors to expand their menu by allowing other dishes (aside from the current chestnut and hot dogs menu). So far, pretty much every body sounds excited about this… Probably except me. See, Toronto tried it some time ago and, as somebody mentioned, it was doomed to failure. While I haven’t read the full details yet whether restrictions that plagued Toronto will happen also in Vancouver, some entrepreneurs are almost ready to go ahead. So, why I am not as optimistic as them?

See, after living in Vancouver for all these years, there are things I have learned, things I have observed and, then again, things I have experienced first hand when you live in a city where there is actual street food. In the case of Vancouver, I believe there is a combination of issues that creates a scenario it will fail. Here are some reasons why I believe that will happen (some of these reasons suggested to me by Sherman in a series of conversations we had):

1) Location… It is needless to say that Vancouver, for the most part, is really segregated into commercial, residential and industrial areas. Sure, you have your strip malls here and there but, except for minor cases where they are partially mixed (like the West End), it is quite evident you are in one or the other. This creates several problems:

• Street vendors must go where business is, which translates into commercial areas (on weekdays) and leisure areas (on weekends) and, in the case of Vancouver, during weekdays there are only a handful of pockets places for this, namely, Downtown Vancouver and parts of the Broadway corridor. One of the issues in these areas is that there are already established restaurants and chances are they won’t want a huge concentration, as it is almost a direct competition to their business. After all, chances are they pay way more taxes than street vendors…
• Even if there is an adequate location for them to establish, there is only that much space available before they run into green areas and/or there is enough critical mass to support their business (specially if there are several ones next to each other). Take for example, English Bay. Currently, there are some hot dog stands which, by themselves, cause no problem to pedestrian traffic. If you were to increase these, to a certain extent, it is still doable. However, one or two swallows don’t make summer so by the time you have “enough”, it will cause problems to pedestrian traffic.
• If the option is go mobile, i.e., inside a truck, you can only stay in one spot before their (free?) parking time runs out. While that might be part of the “fun” trying to find that particular truck, it also adds to frustration if I want to have a fix of such food.
• A workaround that has been mentioned is that of using parking lots, similar to what Tenku Bakudanyaki do/did. True, that is technically possible but, at the same time, you run into two issues: parking spots in Vancouver are limited and where? I mean, if they put that in the middle of nowhere, how many customers will be willing to go there (in my opinion, Vancouver does not have the driving mentality as in the US).

2) Acceptance of street vendors. I will put it bluntly: most people in Vancouver aren’t that used to eating street food in a street environment – and that is despite all the Japadog hype. Similar to point #1 above, there are several reasons.

• Weather. Let’s face it, this is Vancouver. In a way, we are the laughing stock when it comes to our weather. If temperature hits 30C, we complain it is too hot. If a couple of centimetre of snow falls, the city is semi-paralyzed. A small shower and people complain it is “raining”. With this weather mentality, do you really want to be queueing up for street food, when it rains, is too sunny (OK, probably you might for this) or it snows?
• “Cleanliness”. In the end of the movie Demolition Man, John Spartan (Sylvester Stallone’s character), tells one of the characters “why don’t you get a little dirty” and another of the characters “you a lot clean“. I will make no apologies and say that a lot of people here are clean freaks and, well, guess which side of that dialogue they are? If you are such person (like most North Americans), do you think street food is clean? Take, for example, New York, which is sort of a mecca for street food has cleanliness issues of its own (check here, of course, with the caveat it is American “investigative” news and might be an exception rather than the general rule). But, then again, a lot of people override those thoughts when there is (cheap? good?) food in front of them… And, since we are in the movies motif, “You’ve got to ask yourself one question: ‘Do I feel lucky?’ Well, do ya, punk?” As for me, having had my fare share of such food type, I dare to say that getting sick is part of the experience.
• $$$. To put it bluntly, how much are you willing to pay? What is the threshold where you draw the line and say street food is expensive? After all, in certain parts of the world, there is a correlation that street food is cheap. Given the cost of setting up such business in Vancouver, there is a thin line where suddenly your goods might be too expensive. Currently, my threshold is ~CDN $5 (probably add an additional $1). If it is more, I might as well go to a restaurant and order takeout.
• Cuisine. This might be sort of an odd one. What cuisine would be workable in a Vancouver environment? After all, you want something different (i.e., not something you can go to a restaurant) yet something that can attract customers plus something you can eat on the streets. Most people are asking tacos but, c’mon!

Now, here is the odd thing… While I mentioned I am pessimistic, that pessimism has an O’toole’s commentary (Murphy is an optimist) side attached to it, i.e., I actually want to see this type of food in Vancouver. But, in my opinion, for this to be successful, I believe a hawker centre like environment rather than a street food environment is the way to go. For example, during the Olympics, there was such place near Plaza of Nations. And, currently, we have Richmond’s/Summer Night Market. Why? Because instead of having them going around town, have one dedicated place solely for this purpose. Unfortunately, I can’t think of a good place for this in Vancouver per se (as mentioned in one of the points above), other than Granville Street, since they are sections closed for traffic, not to mention there are plans by Vancouver City Hall to close it completely on weekends during summer. Possible? Yes. Willing? Who knows…

In the end, time will tell if these are really crazy thoughts. Will it change the food panorama of Vancouver? Unless there is sort of an earth shattering offering, a lot of cultures are well represented already so I don’t think that will happen. But, hey, this is an opportunity for change and it is now up to the applicants…

Those who know me personally can vouch for what I going to say: At times, I could need a disclaimer simliar to the one you see at the beginning of South Park. Haven’t watched South Park? It goes something like this:

All characters and events in this show—even those based on real people—are entirely fictional. All celebrity voices are impersonated…..poorly. The following program contains coarse language and due to its content it should not be viewed by anyone.

Yes, a lot of times, I don’t hold back and profanity/vulgarity is used every other word if necessary. Furthermore, I can be *really* sarcastic. While I won’t match Salam (of Le Charcuterie), I can piss a lot of people off if I want to (even at times, I do it un-intentionally!). Anyway, the reason I mention this is because this post is a tongue-in-cheek one I wrote some time ago but chose not to publish it. However, for some reason, I though “why not?”. That is despite I know it might… No, it WILL offend some people (even alienating some of my own readers, not to mention some food bloggers). As a result, proceed at your risk! (If you have a thick skin or sick sense of humour, of course, go ahead!).

So, what it is about? This is a twits of a couple of articles I read long time ago about the seven levels of artists and surfers. In this case, my twist is that of food bloggers (though, it can easily be extended into “social media”… Darn, I hate that term!). Without further ado…

Level 7: The equivalent of heaven. Those who are in this level have achieved the perfection… They are paid to eat/talk/write about food and people enjoy that. Their might be a detractor or two but it is mainly because of their jealousy and the fact they will never be able to achieve this level. Anthony Bourdain is among the few who have achieved this.

Level 6: Food critics, aka, professionals. These are writers who are trying to do what Anthony Bourdain does for a living but are not there yet. More often than not, they are happy with what they do; after all, they are still getting paid to eat! The denizens of this level might not be willing to try anything; however, enough encouragement can push them to do it. Their writing style is, of course, professional. They will have their set of detractors, as other sometimes believe they have not been fair. In fact, sometimes it is considered they are a bit too critical. Their souls have not been corrupted yet by the lure of endorsements of restaurants or, to put it bluntly, “bribes”, as they know how to detect them and how to address them accordingly. It is really difficult for them to become anonymous – after all, they are public figures; however, those who can stay “hidden” are almost impossible to distinguish them from a regular patron.

Level 5: PR people: These are the writers, sometimes bloggers, who do this for a living; however, unlike food critics, who are paid by a publication (newspaper, magazine, et al), they are paid by a restaurant/corporation to do publicity/generate awareness. Needless to say, their souls have been corrupted by the $$$. Sometimes, a professional can fall into this level without knowing (or doing it knowingly without their readers knowing). They will be present at almost any public relationship event where food is involved because, well, they do almost the same as the professionals. Their writing style follows the same lines as those from a higher level, except they don’t have a similar code of ethics. Likewise, they are excessively enthusiastic about the food of the restaurants of their customers. They can be seen in the restaurants who acquire their services. They usually do not take pictures of the restaurants: they hire somebody else to do it.

Level 4: Hobbyists. Those in this level write about food just because they like/love food. Frequency of their posts is irrelevant, they write because it is a labour of love; however, after they are aware that long periods of time without anything new posts, they risk falling down from this level. Because they do this as a hobby, they might not necessarily follow the same rules as the food critics, yet, they try not to be skewed either. Writing style might reflect the fact they are not professionals but they try to improve over time. Those who are in this level might try every type of food but, due to other reasons, there will be personal preferences. Hobbyists do not write for the monetary compensation, though if they get something to recover costs of blogging (hosting/domain fees, etc), they will be happy about it. While some will be happy to stay at this level, some have desires to move “up” – in fact, some do eventually. There are detractors but more often than not it is because they are being compared against those a higher level (namely, food critics). Their souls are in harmony with their being, but constantly being tested. Hobbyists can be found in almost any restaurants, from high end to dives to street vendors taking pictures of anything with their P&S or dSLR, and sometimes will go to the extent of taking plates of food to another table with better lightning/natural lightning just to take a better picture.

Level 3: (Media) whores – those writers/bloggers who are not professional, yet try to extract any benefit/perk associated to the activity, like invitations from the PR people for a free event. Some of those who have fallen into this category might not even be food writers/bloggers full time; their area of “expertise” might be something else and, once in a while, drop a post on food/restaurant. The content might be skewed, too: since it is “free”, they don’t seem to be able to write anything negative; as a result, everything sounds/looks good. At other times, they can be hobbyists who are narcissists and, in they search for attention, do almost anything just to create that attention. Detractors don’t take them seriously, as they have no souls (it was sold long time ago). They are usually seen in restaurants, usually invited by the PR people, for a free meal and, at times, they might even deny the “free” part under the cover of “independence”. They usually use P&S; however, depending on their area of expertise, it is possible they might be using camcorders instead.

Level 2: Amateurs, or those who start a blog just because. The frequency of their posts is extremely erratic; might post back-to-back posts in a couple of days and suddenly you might not hear/read from them for a full month. The topic might go from their grandmother’s recipe to an obscure hole-in-the-wall restaurant. Unless there is something catastrophic, they always look at the bright side of things. They don’t care about ratings, though to them replies/follow-up/comments are always nice. Their souls have not been exposed yet to the corruption of the web. However, the inhabitants of this level seldom stay here for long: They soon either fall down or rise through the other levels. An amateur can easily be spotted in a restaurant (which can be pretty much any restaurant), either because of they are nervous while taking the pictures of the food or they are extremely enthusiastic about it.

Level 1: Commenters. The inhabitants of this level are those who don’t write a blog themselves but rather prefer to frequent boards, forums or other blogs. While their comments might sometimes be out of hand, some others are quite insightful. Writers from other levels might fall into this category because they are not active anymore or have moved to other activates. It does not mean those who are in this level are not as good as any of those in a “higher” level; instead, they choose to stay on the sidelines. Just as some might fall to this level, some of them might also rise to be an amateur and even a professional. Fortunately, they still have a soul. You can’t distinguish a commenter from a regular restaurant patron.

Level 0: This level is dedicated to those in eternal damnation. It might be a customer, it might be a restaurant owner, it might be a relative of such restaurant owner. Despite this seemingly “different” group of people, they do have one thing in common: They use resources like DineHere.ca, Yelp.com and Urbanspoon, to either (a) bitch and complain about a restaurant (specially if they had a really bad experience) or (b) laud about the restaurant (in a hope to attract customers). Regardless of which one it is, once they write such post, they are usually never heard of again. Because of this, they have no soul.

Swallow Tail Super Club – “Underground Restaurant”
Somewhere in Vancouver, BC

In the last year or so, a new type of “restaurants” have hit Vancouver silently. How secret? Well, how about it not necessarily registered as a “restaurant” at all? Yes, I am talking about underground restaurants, where cooks (sometime professionals, other times, regular John Doe who are skilled cooks) open their kitchen and, for a “donation”, they will cook a meal for you. It has been feature in local printed media like The Vancouver Sun and The Globe and Mail. While fellow food bloggers have visited and written about it, I have told them I wasn’t that interested in visiting them (more in a moment). However, in a “you can’t comment about it before you have done it” line of thought, I decided to tag along on an outing organized by Jonathan of Food and Tell. The chosen “underground” restaurant? Swallow Tail Super Club.

Before going on, I can safely say that I have had my fair share of underground kitchens (not restaurants). Back in Panama, in some neighbourhoods (usually poor ones), housemakers would cook dishes in their kitchen and would put their cooked goods just outside in a corner for any passerby to buy from them (thus earning some additional income at home). There were pros and cons about this: food could be dirty cheap but there wasn’t any guarantees at all regarding the quality of the food (not to mention, risks of eating something of dubious source, not to mention contaminated). Some of them made a name by themselves and eventually opened a proper restaurant. Those who prospered meant, of course, what they cooked was good.

That, of course, brings the question of my lack of interest of the local underground restaurants… It is in part a split between the type of cuisine plus some hype of exclusiveness/secrecy plus the reason(s) why these cooks choose to stay “underground”. Why not open a formal restaurant? Why not work professionally in a kitchen? Of course, there are diverse answers depending on the cook, on the food, on other extras provided during the meal, etc. etc. In the end, there is no straight answer but, in the end, for me, there is an overrated factor. The question would now be, would this dinner change my opinion?

As mentioned above, Jonathan organized this event by sending emails to almost all Vancouver food bloggers. However, in the end Mijune (Follow Me Foodie), Sherman, (Sherman’s Food Adventures), Anita (La Petite Foodie), Frank and Joyce (Vanfoodies), Jenny and Ricky (My Secret Eden), Ben and Suanne (Chowtimes), Victoria (Victoria’s Food Secrets) and, of course, Jonathan (Food and Tell). As for the chef/cook of Swallow Tail? Chef Robin. Fortunately, it was a sunny Vancouver day and we started by mingling in the backyard. After everybody arrived, so did our amouse bouche.

Farmhouse BC gruyere & sour apple tart on handmade puff pastry with apple reduction

As an amouse bouche, I thought it was slightly heavy but, otherwise, things started to look good. Despite it was “sour” apples, I didn’t taste that much sourness instead, some level of sweetness came out. The creaminess and taste of cheese worked in an odd way with the pastry and apple.

After the amouse bouche, we were then directed to the dining room which happened to be the basement. According to reports from other underground restaurants, the dining area of Swallow Tail is completely separate from the kitchen. It work both ways – it provides some privacy, but it removes the interaction with the cook/chef. The setup was a bit wacky, as there was some mix and match of chairs, tables and, in some cases, even serving plates. Well, since this is not a regular restaurant… And, then, our first course…

Hand harvested stinging nettle soup with arugala & sweet peas with garden rosemary and BC stout bread cubes (radicchio/cream garnish)

I don’t recall eating nettle so I wasn’t sure what to expect. However, based on my experience with pea soup, I was expecting something on the sweet side. It wasn’t; instead, it had some savoury overtones. Sorry, can’t really explain it any other way as it was, well, somewhat basic. Now, on its own way, it wasn’t that bad; just that it wasn’t spectacular…

Cedar smoked romaine with pecorino/parmesan, portugese olive oil vinegrette (sic) and garlic croutons

Just before course #2 showed up, we were told we should eat this dish immediately. Ha! As if that was going to happen when you need to take pictures before start eating! Anyway, this “salad” if you mind was cedar smoked romaine with pecorino/parmesan, portugese olive oil vinaigrette and garlic croutons. It was interesting in the sense it had a combination of warm and a bit cold at the same time. While that was the intent, it didn’t work because of the time it took us to take the pictures (yes, I know I am being redundant here!). As a result, the temperature ended up being somewhat homogeneous all over. As for the taste, there was actually some lettuce taste and the vinaigrette provided some needed acidity while the cheese something creamy. I quite enjoyed this dish; in fact, I did some damage to the one “extra” serving provided.

Baked live Dungeness crab with Averill Creek BC pinot gris, garlic and crab butter with red pepper and star fruit

When deciding the menu, we went for the 5 course option because we wanted this – dungeness crab. According to the chef Robin, she herself caught some of them herself. What really made some of us really excited was the butter, as it had some of the crab “brains” in it. Some of us helped ourselves by dipping the stout bread. But, back to the crab, I was somewhat confused as for the cooking method, i.e., instead of it being boiled, it was baked. Given that it was baked, I was expecting some caramelization but that didn’t happen. I don’t think I would say it was that different from the boiled/steamed version. But, what I thought was a stroke of genius was the star fruit. Normally I would just eat the crab clean, as in…

OK, I did eat it clean…

Anyway the start fruit provided an interesting taste contrast to the (in this case almost flat tasting) crab. If I had to say, this dish felt below par as, without a heavy dose of the butter and some extra help from the star fruit, it couldn’t stand by itself. I think I prefer the way Chinese cook it… >_<

BC bison tenderloin with red onion jam (braised in noble ridge meritage), creamed parsnips with garden rhubbarb, sauteed leeks with cattails in BC chardonnay, cleavers and chive flowers

When the next dish was announced, I had some high expectations. Yeah, something heavy! I was partially disappointed at the portion size (hey, I am a heavy eater, what can I say!). By itself, the tenderloin was nicely cooked: tender, warm and soft. A larger portion would have done wonders. The red onion jam was an odd addition – given it is supposed to be a savoury dish, the jam provided some unnecessary sweetness. I could have lived without it… The parsnip and leeks were OK but not too excited.

Limbert Mountain Farm, cream Earl Grey

Just when dessert was coming, we were also served tea, in this case, Cream of Earl Grey. I have mentioned previously that, given the options for tea, the top ones would be Daarjeling, followed by Earl Grey. Recently, I have tried Cream of Earl Grey, which in addition to that orange-y taste (thanks to the bergamot oil), it also had some vanilla taste to it. I have a personal liking to it so, from a personal perspective, I can’t say anything negative.

Beer battered crepe blintz with (Limbert Mountain Farm) cream Earl Grey tea creme anglais, apples & huckleberries, Amontillado Sherry reduction(pepper, lemon rind, vanilla bean)

Since I am not that much of a dessert person, I ate this one as is. Unlike the amouse bouche which ended up having some sweetness, despite it was called sour, here the apple was actually had some slight sourness in it. Otherwise, aside from some crispy parts in the crepe, there isn’t much else I can say.

It is needless to say that the conversation I had with nearby bloggers – I ended up seated near Victoria, Mijune, Sherman and Jonathan really made the night. But, as for the food itself… Well, it went both ways. In a way, the food didn’t really wow me. In fact, for the $49 “donation” charge, I can think of better dining options. However, at the same time, the passion which chef Robin cooked was showing during the description of the dishes. In the end, this dinner didn’t really change my thoughts about underground restaurants. However, I can also see why others might like it. The issue would be if you can go through all the trouble to obtain a reservation (assuming it has openings). This ends up being another “gotcha” as to why I would rather skip this type of “establishments”.

And, to close this post, just for comparison sake, please check this post from Mijune who visited a “private” kitchen in Hong Kong… It is quite an interesting read, let me assure you!

This is the last part of my series on what I have learned all these years taking pictures. As mentioned, in my previous three post, these are the planned topics:

• The Camera
• Camera Settings
• Taking the picture
• Post-processing – this post!

This final part is about post-processing. In a way, for most people, they would have stopped in the previous step, i.e., after taking the picture, they would use the JPEG file and that would be end of the story. However, there are times that, well, those pictures didn’t necessarily turn out the way you want it. For example, if a setting was wrong, white balance was incorrect or so on. True, while you can see it in the preview, the in camera preview is that big and can only show that much. Here is for the remaining cases – which, unfortunately for me, that would be >80% of the time. Yes, I am making a confession here: I am not a big shot photographer as people believe. I have still a lot to learn and need some help to produce those results you see here…

Now, one topic I would like to make clear before I continue. In my last post, I made mention of Photoshop. Yes, I do use Photoshop Elements; however, I only use it for three purposes: picture resizing, picture rotation (including horizontal/vertical flips) and adding my “signature”/watermark. Why I mention this? Because Photoshop has been so oftenly (ab)used that nowadays is almost a verb (on that note, I will generalize by saying “Photoshop” but that includes other apps like Picasa and, for old timers, Corel Draw and so on). So, let’s put this clear: post processing is about photo management with some minor editing capabilities, while Photoshop is about image editing. If we took a Venn diagram, there will be parts of post post processing that will not covered by Photoshop and viceversa. But what I consider key in the post processing side is that it is a non-destructive process. How so? Before I continue, a small discussion about file formats that cameras can take…

As mentioned initially in this post, most people would take their JPEG files and be happy about it. Well, it just happens that each camera can take pictures “as it sees” in its own unprocessed propietary format, called generally the RAW format (NEF file in Nikon, CR2 in Canon and so on). What this has to do with JPEG? Well, it just happens that JPEG files are “interpretations” of what is capture plus some “enhancements” internally. For example, one of the settings not discussed previously is that I have set my camera to image optimization to vivid (setting availability depends on the camera, there are even some cameras with a “food” setting!). Here is the kicker: that is based on the camera’s logic, there are times the end result is not necessarily what you might want. However, the fact most users are oblivious of settings like this mean, not to mention they don’t pay too much importance to this, mean not all the potential is used. In my case, by taking the picture in RAW, it allows me to make necessary adjustments as I see suitable (hence my >80% comment at the beginning).

So far so good… But what that has to do with post processing, JPEG, Photoshop and so on? Well, it just happens that RAW files are propietary and, while it can be read (to a certain extent, it is more of an “interpretation” of the RAW files), post processing of RAW files does not overwrite that RAW file. OK, let me try again: you have the RAW file, you have the changes file/database. Whenever you load it in your postprocessing application, it will read the RAW file and its applicable change file. If you make changes, you do not make changes to the RAW source file, instead it will be saved in that change file/database, hence you will always have the original data source. The same can’t be said of JPEG files, unless you save it as a different output file everytime. That is because JPEG is known to be a lossy format, i.e., everytime you save a JPEG file, some of the data is discarded, hence, after a couple of saves, what you get might not necessarily be what you had originally. So, translation of all this: In my opinion, if you are planning to make some level of editing/adjustments to your pictures, take them in RAW; if not, JPEG, for the most part will be fine.

Phew! That was a lot of thick technical detail! So, finally, let’s just go to the good stuff… OK, almost, hehehehe. If you plan to do post processing, the two major applications available nowadays are Adobe Lightroom (now called Adobe Photoshop Lightroom to confuse things a little bit) and Apple Aperture. In the case you use a Windows based computer, most likely you will use Lightroom; if you have a Mac, you have the option of either one. As for me, I use Apple Aperture. Now, FINALLY, the good stuff, by starting with a picture I took.

(Note, if you click on any of the pictures below, it will open in a new window. To avoid the degradation mentioned above, they were saved directly from the source. That is the reason you do NOT see my usual signature/watermark)

It has most of the “principles” discussed in the previous post, i.e., namely the rule of thirds. The central subject (the palm tree), is slightly off-centre and I tried to position it in the on the right side and create that “emptiness” on the left side. But, this is the JPEG version…

This is the RAW version, exported “as is” to JPEG. I won’t blame you if you say this looks “worst” than the JPEG version but, please remember, the camera itself has already made some conversion.

My first post processing adjustment: I changed the saturation to 1.15. Nothing too “noticeable” so far…

Now, I changed the highlights to 16.54. Notice that the blue tone is now lighter.

Next change is changing the Shadows to 15.0. The “darker” section, namely, the tree is now a bit lighter.

While it is a picture taken while the sun was out, because of the aperture/shutter speed settings used, it can get some help from the luminance settings. Here, they were changed to B:0.00, G:0.45, W:0.90.

Since I want to emphasize the blue of the sky, I edited the blue colour settings, i.e., saturation 50, luminance -45.8, range 2

Finally, to make it more “vibrant”, I edited the vibrancy setting to 0.35…

Two notes:

1. I know the numbers will not mean absolutely nothing to most of you. That is fine. That is not the intent. Post processing is one of those personal things where everybody might (and will!) do it differently. My point here is that changes were made and it shows what are the results of those changes
2. I could have kept on making changes to settings but, truth is, there ought to be a limit of how many changes you want to make. Eventually, you want to see that final picture/result!

Now, a second example of post processing.

Again, this is the “original” JPEG version of the picture.

This is the JPEG version of the RAW, “as is”.

There is no particular order which modifications should be made. So insists in the exposure, so here, I changed it to 0.91.

After changing the exposure, I “saturated” the picture by 1.30. That “concentrates” the colours but, still, there is something “missing”.

Followed by adjusting the luminance to B:0.00, G:0.45, W:0.80. This really brightens the picture!

And highlight to 22.69.

Since I wanted to emphasize the yellow green of the limes, I adjusted the green colour to saturation -60.0, luminance 25.0, range 0.

And a bit of the yellow colour to saturation 25.4, luminance 0, range 1.

So, there you go! Here is my little dirty secret. It is not that I take better pictures than anybody, instead, similar to photographers who make some adjustments in their darkrooms, I use post processing to adjust mine.

Having said that, I must reminder people these adjustments do not necessarily change the picture itself. It does not change what was served on the plate. Sure, it might make it more interesting/enticing but, remember, this is a blog and the pictures are mostly to suplement what is written (and not the other way around).

Hopefully you “enjoyed” this series and, if you take food pictures, this can help you even a little bit. And, if it does, please, let me a note!

It is possible I am looking at things with a bit of a tunnel vision. If you believe so, I apologize for that… However, what is the deal these days with almost everybody attacking food bloggers? No, I am not referring to personal verbal attacks – I am too thick skinned for those (if you browse some posts, you will notice I do get attacked once in a while). Instead, I am referring to the concept itself of food blogging and (damn I hate this term at times) social media… While it hasn’t broken down into a holy war, in the same sense of Windows vs. Mac vs. Unix, vi vs emacs, C vs. C++ vs. Java vs. C# or some other ideological war, it is starting to get somewhat annoying…

OK, probably “attacking” might be too strong but, as a food blogger, I can’t help myself feel that way. Don’t get me wrong, I can take criticism but, given its frequency… OK, how about I include two examples:

• An article in Gremolata about people tweeting in restaurants.
• An article in The Globe and Mail calling some of us snobs.

Now, not that some of the points on those two articles aren’t valid. For example, I do take pictures with my SLR and, lately, I have been using my flash a bit too much; however, I try to minimize disruption to any other restaurant customers. After all, when I went to Burgoo, I did not use the flash. Now, I do use my iPhone while I am in the restaurant but I do not tweet. In fact, I have asked fellow bloggers not to do so either during our meals (more on the lines to avoid the restaurant finding out we are there, more than anything else). As for why I use my iPhone, well, when you dine out alone so often, you need something to spend your time while waiting for your entree…

While those issues mentioned above might be minor, there are two points that really bug me, probably pisses me off might be a more suitable word. These are…

1) Food bloggers being snobs. As I have mentioned in the past, I hate the term foodie. Somehow, that is akin of punks calling themselves hackers (where they are rather crackers). OK, probably not everybody gets that one. How about scratching a chalkboard? Yes, it is that painful… OK, I am digressing here. More than anything else, I hate to be called snob. For the most part, I believe I am your average person and, if it wasn’t because that might be contradictory, I might even say I am humble at times. I look at food as a necessity, where I am fortunate to have relatively easy access to (not that I am getting it for free, at least I have a job that pay the bills). I grew up with the idea that my parents worked really hard to put food on the table and, as a result, I learned to appreciate it for what it is. I don’t care if it is the finest ingredient in the world, I don’t care if it is the finest restaurant in the world: if it is bad, it is bad. As an odd reflection of this thought, more often than not, fine dining restaurants disappoint me more than mom-n-pop places. It is not about romanticism – it is about expectations (and probably the hole that fine dining place left in your wallet).

2) Food bloggers being critics. I have never considered myself a critic; in fact, I have deflected any such naming, as I abhor fallacy by authority. Just because you have worked in a restaurant does not give you any absolute power, knowledge or ultimate word, as you still have personal likes/dislikes and other similar idiosyncrasies. (In fact, among the worst “reviews” I have read are those who have worked in restaurants… As part of the wait staff). I write about my experiences in a restaurant as a regular diner, without any assumptions or expectations, and that is about it. I do not expect anybody to agree with it and there are chances other’s people experience will be different to mine. The fact is that on this day and age, (almost) everybody has a say. Restaurants, be used to it. True, it might be your livelihood; however, at the same time, it is my hard earned $$$ I am spending. Understand people’s comments and thoughts and take them as criticism. If you can’t take it, probably you are in the wrong line of business, given a restaurant is a (semi-)public place. And, in the case of social media, some restaurants have taken it both ways – in some cases, taking advantage of it by inviting food bloggers to events to promote themselves. (On that note, as I reminder, I do NOT blog about those events). The “problem” I believe is that writers of traditional media is feeling the comparison. No, you shouldn’t. Food bloggers is about personal thoughts and most of us do not have professional training in Communications. It is up to readers to make the distinction.

Granted, I don’t believe these apply to me but, when people generalize, it hits you as well. That brings the question of where the bad rap comes… Well, like in a typical 80/20-esque rule, there will always be some spoiled apples in the barrel. There will always be a jackass snob who believe the most expensive dish is the best or the “only worthy” restaurants are located in some geographical areas of town (and try to convince their readers that’s the absolute truth). Likewise, there will be bloggers who are actually blaggers, i.e., writers paid or have a relationship with the restaurants and write solely with the intent of promoting them – but without disclosing this relationship. And then there are people who have jumped into the social media bandwagon and write “just because” and for free stuff. While I firmly believe most readers are smart, that bad feedback theorem still hits: that of negative feedback moves (and piles up) faster than good ones…

Back to myself, as I have mentioned above, I have a really thick skin and will take almost all criticism. Now, if you hate me for some reason, I will paraphrase what Anita wrote once: If you are hated for what you are doing, it means you are doing something right.

This is a bit of a “bonus” post. Today’s regular post is below.

To those not “old” enough might not get the joke behind the title of this post. It is one of the most memorable quotes from Crocodile Dundee. Or, just to refresh your memory, check this clip:

So, what this has to do with food? You will understand once you click on read more below. But, before that, a special thanks to jlomein, Jettie, Jose, fellow blogger timetochow who have been commenting in my Delicias de Alicia and Guantanamera Restaurant and Bar posts. So, without further ado…

A couple of months ago, I organized a mini-gathering to El Inka Deli to try some Latin American food (specifically, non-Mexican Latin American food). While I didn’t blog it myself (you can check the posts from Mijune, Elaine, Jessica and Degan) , because I have done so previously, that didn’t stop me from taking pictures of the food. One of the dishes ordered which was tamal (yes, it is not tamale; the correct spelling is tamal, without a trailing e).

However, that’s NOT a tamal…

THAT’s a tamal! (Yes, that is a big raisin with a decent piece of chicken!).

Likewise, when I went with Mijune to Baru Latino, these were what was served as ceviche…

That’s NOT ceviche…

THAT’s ceviche! Yes, it is “cooked” with lime/lemon juice…

When it comes to comfort food, some people think fried chicken. However, for most people, frying chicken is too time consuming and a lot of times eating fried chicken means going to Church’s or *gasp* KFC. When I went to Seattle earlier this year, I went to Ezell’s Chicken and ordered some fried chicken…

But, you know what: That *might* be chicken… But, the way it is fried and the end result… So, that might *not* be chicken…

THAT’s fried chicken! Juicy (even when this piece happened to be the breast), full of actual chicken taste… (drool…)

And a lot of people like lobster. For some reason, I believe lobster is overrated. I myself prefer shrimp instead over lobster a lot of times. The “bad” thing is that, lobster or shrimp, it is darn bloody expensive here and, in most restaurants, it is just over expensive seafood. I can provide one too many examples, instead, just let me show you what shrimp is supposed to be:

That’s shrimp! OK, actually, these are langoustines but you get the gist!

Finally, a somewhat popular “snack” is takoyaki, where the “tako” part is octopus. But, you know what, even the oversized takoyaki, aka, bakudanyaki from Tenku Bakudanyaki has just small pieces of octopus,

But… That’s NOT octopus…

THAT’s an octopus!

So, while Vancouver has interesting/good eats, it still lacks in some aspects. Regardless you believe this statement is true or false, I hope I have caught your attention… That’s because they will be part of next week’s posts!

This is the third part of my series on what I have learned all these years taking pictures. As mentioned, in my previous two post, these are the planned topics:

• The Camera
• Camera Settings
• Taking the picture – this post!
• Post-processing

Once again, this is about what I have learned by taking pictures in the last couple of years and, by no mean, is a replacement for formal education from a professional. This is very important in this post because it brings the one issue with photography that makes or break a picture: composition. Yes, no matter how proficient you are with some apps *cough*Photoshop*cough*, you need that initial picture to begin with.

Here is a big note before we continue: photography is “art” and beauty is in the eye of the beholder. No matter how a picture turns out, it is about you and how *you* like it. Nobody can tell you it is wrong or looks ugly. If you like it, that is what matters.

So, to start off, let’s start off with two pictures of the same subject.

These two pictures were taken in King Sushi in New Westminster. Both are unedited, copied “as is” from my iPhone. I chose not to take it with my SLR to take it as a factor. The first picture would be a picture I would take when I first started taking pictures of food; the second one is sort of the picture I would take lately (tough might crop it a little bit). So, which one looks “better”?

If you choose the first one… Oh, well, shame on me. If you choose the second one, then it serves to illustrate one rule of thumb called Rule of Thirds. According to this “rule”, if you draw two parallel horizontal lines and two parallel vertical lines to make nine equally sized rectangles (or, to put it plainly, a tic-tac-toe “field”), the main subject of the pictures should be on the lines or near the intersection of the lines instead of the dead center. As in here:

The reason behind rule of thumb is that the object shouldn’t be in the dead centre of the picture. By placing where these lines are located, it creates some balance to the picture and point(s) of interest. Of course, this is not a set in stone type rule. There are times that you will have to break it. For example, I “broke” it when I took this picture from the Alpen Club/Deutsches Haus:

(Notice that the iPhone has a 4:3 ratio, hence a “taller” image; the Nikon D40 is closer to 3:2, i.e., 3008 x 2000 ~= 6 megapixels).

I know that a lot of us are used to taking pictures in the dead centre; I have done that myself. But also keep in mind that this is applicable to this type of photography, if you take portrait pictures, this logic might not work.

Of course, for the Rule of Thirds to work, you need to make sure you can focus on that specific area. And that brings the topics of area focusing. Have you noticed that, when you try to take a picture with P&S, the camera will try to focus on some areas (in the case of pictures with people, their faces)? This concept is referred to focus points. In most P&S cameras, it will be done automatically for you but, a lot of times, that leaves the picture “flat”, i.e., everything will be balanced. In SLRs, you can do that as well; however, it is more flexible (and not flexible at the same time). Depending on the camera, when it auto-focus, you can have as little as 3 focus points (left, centre, right, as my Nikon D40), 9 focus points (imagine all the squares of tic-tac-toe) and so on. By “focusing” on that specific area, you can leave the rest of the picture with some blurriness or more detail. That creates some level of interest.

The focus on this image is on mint leaves on top of the sorbet, while the rest is intentionally left “blurry”

What, more blurriness or detail? Yes, as mentioned in my previous post of this series, by changing your aperture settings, you can determine the background detail level. Of course, it also depends on the intent of the picture, i.e., capture more background or not. Regardless of that intent, you can only change that setting, if and only if, there is enough light hitting that area. And that brings that one issue again: lightning…

Yes, yes, I know I have mentioned lightning a lot of times and, in photography, lightning is king. However, this time, it is about positioning the food in perspective of the sunlight or other artificial light source. In my case, since I seldom take pictures in an controlled environment, at times, it is important to determine the best way to take a picture based on the circumstances… Or, if there is sunlight, try to grab the table closest to the window!

For the most part, if there is enough light (to find out, just take a sample shot), it is just a matter of setting the white balance (or full auto) and go from there. But, when there is not enough light that is when things start to get tricky. For the most part, depending on your lens (in the case of SLRs) or how flexible is your P&S, the idea is to set a high aperture and a slow shutter speed and play with the settings a little bit. For example, when I was in Le Pichet (in Seattle), it was somewhat dark and, rather than using my flash, I decided to changed the settings of the camera instead. So, based on what I mentioned above about shutter speed and aperture, I was able to take this picture:

Picture taken at 1/8 second shutter speed and f/1.8 aperture.

But, if you choose not to go to these extremes, then that leaves that necessary evil… The flash. Yes, that one thing that bugs a lot of people, specially other customers/staff/restaurants. So far, I have been asked twice to stop taking pictures for this exact reason. Yes, it bothers others but if push comes to shove, I will use it. Here is one major problem with regular flashes, regardless of either SLRs or P&S: it sucks. For example purposes, compare the following unedited  pictures, taken directly from the camera (and thanks to Mukmuk for posing for the pictures!):

These pictures were taken in Programmed mode, with auto-focus disengaged and based on the basic JPG files rather than the postprocessed version. The difference is that the first one was taken without flash, the second is taken with direct flash (via the built-in) flash. While the first one looks disappointing in terms of colours/hue/saturation, the second picture does not necessarily fare any better. It is quite “harsh” on the picture. Now, compare it to this…

The difference? Rather than the light being concentrated from one point, here, the light was spread around a bit more, i.e., diffused. Just in case, I used the built-in flash rather than my external flash! So how this was accomplished? I placed a standard bond white sheet of paper a couple of inches from flash. There you go! Your 1 cent diffuser! Of course, if I were using my Speedlight, I would follow a somewhat different logic: rather than pointing the flash towards the food, I point to the ceiling. In other words, use the returning “bouncing” light, like when I took this picture when I was in Tenhachi:

There are lot of other topics (“simplicity”, shooting angle, et al) I can keep on writing on but, for the most part, I think the ones mentioned above are the basics. The other topics tend to be more subjective. And, most importantly, as mentioned initially, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. In the end, it is how you like them…

(The original post of my Taking Pictures of Food series was supposed to be up for today; however, due to other circumstances, I had to reschedule it. Instead, thanks to some odd timing, I wanted to address something else…).

A lot of people might miss the point of the name of this post – that will be specially true if you do not watch South Park. The episode of two weeks ago (aka, episode 199, aka episode 1404), brought the topic of virtual friends and, well, let’s just say I am not necessarily that interested in that concept. At this point, I am sure some of you might be thinking “WTH you are talking about?!” Before anybody starting bringing some (virtual?) pitchforks and decide to stop reading this blog, please, let me elaborate…

Similar to the plot of that episode, partially due to peer pressure, I created a Facebook profile some time ago. Likewise, due to some partial peer pressure, I created a Twitter account. What, I have a FB account? OK, before some people start looking for it, don’t. I created it just to go to RSVP a meeting and haven’t gone back ever since. If you are looking for me to approve you as a friend, sorry, that won’t happen. If I ever remember the password (at this point, I don’t), I will just delete the profile. *Shakes fist!!!*

So, why I created these if I have no interest in keeping them? As mentioned above, I created it was because it was required for an activity. Otherwise, I won’t have bothered. (I wasn’t given a way around it). Unlike others, I tend to be a more private person. Call me old-fashioned, call me old school (something I have admitted in the past) but I value people I have met personally, specially those who I have created a bond – and people on-line whom I respect for what they have brought forward (hence, I hope to meet them personally in the real world to break bread one of these days). In the first case, I have Mijune, Sherman, Anita, Jessica, Kathy, et al. In the second case, shokutsu (update) all members of the Foodosophy team and Chris. (Just in case: this is not inclusive list but the first names that came to my mind). To me having thousands of unknown (or known only by reputation) people in your Facebook friend list or people following you in Twitter at times is akin to the concept of miles wide but barely inches deep. (Or to quote that episode of South Park “Friends shouldn’t be some kind of… commodity for a person’s status!“).

Don’t get me wrong, I have met people on the initial basis of meeting them on-line, though this tend to be more an exception rather than a general rule. For example, I have met frequent reader and commenter Holly, as well as fellow bloggers Erin, Karl, Elaine, Eudora and Shirley. (Oh, none of them even via Facebook/Twitter but from here).

And, just in case to show you that it is not personal, I don’t have even that many schoolmates in my Facebook page. If I wanted to, I can easily ditch 2/3 of my current list (added long time ago when I first started using it) and keep only a handful. That won’t make any difference to me. Come to think about it, let me do it *now*…

Of course, some fellow bloggers had a FB page long time ago and then starting blogging (Sherman seems to be such case), while some of other bloggers just started it or have it for business purposes. Regardless of how it came out to its existence, what works for them does not necessarily work for me (and the opposite is also true). I don’t care how your “restaurant” is working or how your farm is growing. I simply don’t care (so stop pestering me with those updates!). If I were to care, I would use a more personal electronic medium, like an email or, as requested by some, a Twitter direct message.

So, to the people who have been waiting for my status update in Facebook or have asked why I haven’t followed the trend of others to create a Facebook page, I apologize. It is not for me. If you want to know how I am doing or what I am doing, in general, this blog is my main medium, followed by (way far back) Twitter. And I thank you for checking both!

This is the second part of my series on what I have learned all these years taking pictures. As mentioned, in my first post, these are the planned topics:

• The Camera
• Camera Settings – this post!
• Composition Taking the Picture
• Post-processing

OK, now you have your camera, battery charged, SD card in and so on. Ready to take pictures? Well, no… See, a lot of people jump right away and start taking pictures all in auto settings. For the most part, that is fine. Most modern point-and-shoot (P&S) will done fine with the default settings, provided you are not too demanding. However, more can be done if you are willing to “tweak” it a little bit. And that is the topic of this post…

Update!!!! I have included some pictures for example purposes.

As a reminder, my posts focus mostly in SLR but your P&S might have similar settings.

When I got my first camera, one thing that a lot of “pros” emphasized was the “photography trinity”: ISO setting, shutter speed and aperture. At first, I was just your happy average consumer taking everything in auto mode. But, one day, I decided to play with those settings and ended up in really crappy results. I thought, why the hell they would make emphasis on these settings if the results are crap? As you can guess, that is because I was setting them incorrectly. Through some trial and error, I started to fine tune thing a little bit but, still, I knew I had a lot to go through. But, here comes on small detail: Why would any average user want to spend so much time in settings when you can spend your time taking pictures? Well, my answer further down in this post…

But, back to the topic of the three settings, it is the combination of the three that will determine what you will get at the end. So, let’s break it down:

ISO Setting: I will admit that, out of the three settings, this is the one I know the least about (and, chances are, I am completely wrong!). That is because I leave it as it default setting (in my case, 200)! Anyway, ISO settings refers to the sensitivity of the camera sensors. How does it apply to the real world? Not 100% sure, but one thing I have learned from taking pictures: the higher the ISO, the picture tends to be grainier, though works better with fast moving objects. Since I seldom take such pictures under those circumstances, I will leave it up to you to play with it!

Shutter speed: When you take a picture, how long will the shutter will remain open for the sensor to “capture” the image. Since photography is all about light available, what setting to use will depend on the amount of light available. For example, if it is really bright (noon on a summer day), something over 1/500 second could work fine, while on a cloudy day you might be more tempted to use something on the lines of 1/100 seconds. And, of course, if it is really dark, even a full second.

Aperture: While the shutter speed determines how long the shutter will remain open, aperture determines how wide it will open. It is usually represented by f/# where # is a number. The lower the number, the wider it will be. Similar to the shutter speed, different lightning conditions will determine what aperture should be used.

In addition to these settings, there are other settings that exists but, for the most part, people overlook it because, well, it does not seem to do much. The most “important” one would be white balance, where you “optimize” how the camera will take the picture depending on the lightning outside – For example, incandescent or fluorescent light behaves differently, likewise, a sunny day and a cloudy day also behaves somewhat differently. Play with these settings and you (and the camera) might look things from a different perspective.

While all these “settings” are important, I will admit that I am a slacker with these. The reasons are:

1) After all these years, I still don’t know what is the “best” setting to use for most conditions. (Answer: there is no such “best” setting).
2) Even if I did, I would rather spend time trying to take the picture than playing with the settings.
3) I seldom take pictures in a controlled environment (say, a studio). When things change from shot to shot, it means I have to tweak it for each shot, which brings back to the two points above.

That is why, rather than setting up my camera in manual mode (where you set both shutter speed and aperture manually), aperture priority (where you set the aperture manually and leave the shutter speed to the camera) or shutter priority (again, where you set the shutter speed manually), I use programmed mode by default. This mode is a mix between auto and manual – the only two settings I delegate to the camera is the aperture and shutter speed. Everything else is up to me. Also, if I need to make an adjustment, I don’t have to fiddle through the menus to access them; instead, just a quick flip on the knobs can increase/decrease the aperture/shutter speed while maintaining that semi-automatic mode (consult your camera manual for the steps).

Camera set to Programmed mode in my Nikon D40

I will say that over 80% of the time programmed mode works for me but, there are times that I do want full control (i.e., use manual mode). Since I am far from knowing all the intricacies, what I do is take a snapshot with programmed mode, look at the settings the camera used and I then use them as base for me to then set up my own aperture/shutter speed. I know that this might sound odd but there are reasons why I do this…

Have you noticed pictures of fountains or streams or even waterfalls where the stream of water looks like a solid line rather than water splashing on rocks? Likewise, have you seen pictures where the background is either blurry or it captures a lot of detail? Well, it is in those cases where you might want to start adjusting either aperture and shutter speed as, depending on these, it is how you can generate those effects:

1) If you want to create that “stream” effect (fountains, water falls, et al), decrease the shutter speed. 1/15 should do a lot… (Of course, some help from mother nature might be required).
2) If you want to capture more of the background, decrease the aperture. Assuming there is decent amount of lightning, start with something like f/9 and then go to f/11 and so on.
3) If you want a really shallow dept, i.e., most of the background to be blurry, use a really high aperture, for example, f/4.

(Update, since it was originally too “dry”, below is an example of what occurs when you change the aperture. The pictures below were taken in HK BBQ Master, my post here).

ISO 400; Shutter speed: 1/30; Aperture: f/1.8. While quite bright, notice the focus is mostly on the bok choy at the bottom and the rest is quite blurry.

ISO 1600; Shutter speed: 1/30; Aperture: f/4.5. By reducing the aperture, now there is more detail of the background…

ISO 400; Shutter speed: 1/30; Aperture: f/6.3. However, if we set it too low, it gets too “dark”.

Sidenote: if you set your shutter speed to something low, your shakiness might cause some blurriness in the picture. In those cases, it is highly recommended you get a tripod and, if necessary, use a delayed shot).

Now, since the combination of ISO, shutter speed and aperture is similar to that of a three legged stool, it means that changing one setting requires a change from another to compensate. So, if you are decreasing the aperture, you might want to increase the shutter speed to make sure enough light is capture by the camera sensor. Of course, if the intent is to make it “darker” or “brighter”… However, since I assume you are using a digital camera, there is a better approach: take one picture, look at the results. Don’t like it? Change the settings and take another one! (Did I mention that is one of the main reasons it is unlikely I will go to film???).

There is one situation where I leave it at programmed mode no matter what: When I use a flash (special consideration as I use an external flash). Since I don’t point the flash directly at the subject I am taking pictures of, that means the light could bounce in odd ways. Given that 99.999% of the time I take pictures in settings that I can’t control (again, a studio with artificial lightning), I would rather not guess and leave it in programmed.

That begs the question now: sure, all this is good but… Where should you start if you want to manually adjust your camera? As mentioned above, I am sure most people would rather be taking pictures than tweaking with settings and my answer to that would be learning from others. While conditions might not be exactly the same, I am sure some of you will want to know how the images were taken or what settings were used. I mean, you weren’t there to snoop the photographer when he/she was taking the picture, right? Well, not 100% true. There is something called EXIF which stands for Exchangeable Image File Format. Other than some notable exceptions (like PNG and JPEG 2000), most images include details about the camera used to take the picture. These details include time stamp, camera make and model, aperture, shutter speed, mode, etc. etc. There are EXIF plugins for browsers or, if you are too lazy to install them, there are only viewers on-line. While you might not truely reproduce the same image (as, even using the same setting, the camera might capture things differently, not to mention it would be quite difficult to duplicate the exact same conditions), at least that give you a starting point to play with.

So, there you go! Again, these settings are the core when taking pictures and allow you to fine-tune what you are doing. While it is something good to know, it is not absolutely necessary to know. It is in those instances where you really feel the need to take full control that I believe will allow you to shine. For the rest of the time, I believe that most modern cameras will do the job over 80% of the time. As I have repeated myself a couple of times, instead of going overboard, just enjoy taking that picture instead. Who knows, that one moment might not be there one second after… And, in the case of food, hey, the food might get cold!