Pet peeves about cooking shows

TastyReuben said:
I know I’ve read articles before, those “Things You Didn’t Know About Cooking Shows” type articles, and one of those is that, depending on the show, the food you see prepared isn’t really fit to eat, because being a visual medium, they go for looks, so many times, things will be raw in the middle, that sort of thing.

Another nod to my buddy Pepin, he’s known to be extremely frugal, even on his shows, and he doesn’t just talk the talk, he lives it, and when his food is presented, it’s done, and it’s eaten by the crew, or by his family.
Click to expand...

I know with professional food styling/photography, the food is usually not fit for consumption. I don't know about cooking shows. The host is making the food on camera, so it would be harder to fake the looks.

CD
 
In Brit cooking shows the chef eating some of what they cooked at the end is a fait accompli so if its not fit to eat I’m not sure what they’re tucking into at the end :D

Food photography is a whole other game, quite gross some of the things they use to make the food look good under the lights 🤢
 
Last edited:
One of the things I’m not keen on in a very small percentage of cookery progs is the when they insert too much whimsy or have an overtly sexy edge to it. I don’t want to see a chef eating a spoonful of something like they’re trying to seduce you.

A good example of too much whimsy being the Sophie Dahl cookery prog (Roald Dahls granddaughter) where there were frequent moments where poetry was read out in a sickly cutesy fashion. ‘Ooh look at me being all clever and artsy’’ no thanks, just get on with the cooking thing we tuned into see 😆
 
SandwichShortOfAPicnic said:
I’ve read the camera crew are eternally hungry and it doesn’t last five minutes once filming is over - even after it’s long gone cold 😆
Click to expand...
Except for the American show  Chopped. They are given some really weird ingredients sometimes (lamb brains or testicles, century eggs, etc.) and with a limited amount of time to get the food on the plate so chicken or pork might be undercooked, food isn't seasoned properly, etc. And they sometimes cut themselves and it's inedible.
 
JAS_OH1 said:
Except for the American show  Chopped. They are given some really weird ingredients sometimes (lamb brains or testicles, century eggs, etc.) and with a limited amount of time to get the food on the plate so chicken or pork might be undercooked, food isn't seasoned properly, etc. And they sometimes cut themselves and it's inedible.
Click to expand...
Oh we had one a bit like that here donkey years ago called ready steady cook. Two chefs compete against each other with a handful of ingredients brought in by a member of the public under a short time limit and then the audience voted on who won.
They always brought in rubbish ingredients that didn‘t work together and the food was often not properly cooked.
I couldn‘t watch it in the end - the food was awful and it was a waste.
 
SandwichShortOfAPicnic said:
Oh we had one a bit like that here donkey years ago called ready steady cook. Two chefs compete against each other with a handful of ingredients brought in by a member of the public under a short time limit and then the audience voted on who won.
They always brought in rubbish ingredients that didn‘t work together and the food was often not properly cooked.
I couldn‘t watch it in the end - the food was awful and it was a waste.
Click to expand...
Yeah, ours is judged by a panel of celebrity chefs and restaurant owners with 4 contestants cooking 3 rounds...a contestant is "chopped" after each round with the final contestant winning 10k. I watched it for a few years but it did get old. They still make episodes I do believe.
 
rascal said:
I can cook but would never call myself a chef. I have NO checkered pants or tops.

Russ
Click to expand...
That!

But even most cooks aren't chefs, I have always called myself ' cook ' on here because I never lead a brigade but did work in a kitchen. The word ' chef ' is actually strenge to apply to everyone who cooks like television does.
 
The cook/chef thing, I always liked Julia What’s-Her-Face’s remark on America’s Test Kitchen.

When asked if she was a chef or a cook, she said a chef runs the kitchen, sets the menu, procures the ingredients, and a cook executes that that. Her summation: “At home, I’m the chef (and the cook!), but here on the show, I’m just the cook.”

So even though I don’t have the checkered trousers (I’m usually cooking in my underpants), I’m the chef! :laugh:
 
TastyReuben said:
So even though I don’t have the checkered trousers (I’m usually cooking in my underpants), I’m the chef! :laugh:
Click to expand...

I'm glad I picked up a fresh bottle the other day...

Screen Shot 2023-04-01 at 8.55.02 AM.jpg


CD
 
SandwichShortOfAPicnic said:
Food photography is a whole other game, quite gross some of the things they use to make the food look good under the lights 🤢
Click to expand...

I can hand on heart say that none of my food photography uses inedible or fake elements. I tend to think that 'faked' food photography is less common these days. Digital photography is much easier in terms of getting perfect results for food than film.
 
Morning Glory said:
I can hand on heart say that none of my food photography uses inedible or fake elements. I tend to think that 'faked' food photography is less common these days. Digital photography is much easier in terms of getting perfect results for food than film.
Click to expand...

My food photos are real food, since I eat it after I photograph it. But, I know that professional food stylist still do some weird stuff to make food look better, particularly for marketing/advertising use. Editorial photographers tend to use food that is edible, although maybe not as shot. I did a magazine shoot of food from a prime steakhouse. The steak was pretty much raw inside, with a perfect crust. After the shoot, the chef finished cooking the steak to medium rare so I could eat it.

FourWinds.jpg


CD
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom