Oprah-geddon: Winfrey To Quit Show In 2011
Daley Blames - Who Else? - The Media For Oprah-geddon
Chicago Gets Googled
Friday Flashback - Old School Oprah
Today's Transgender Day of Remembrance Honors the Dead
A stylized version of a Five Guys burger (left) and a Five Guys burger Chuck ordered in February (right).
Ever noticed that fast food never looks quite as... appetizing as it does in advertisements? We've all heard food stylist horror stories about shaving cream, glycerin, paints, oils and all the other fake things used to make food look just so for photo shoots. But this piece from The Guardian's food blog puts it all in perspective: side-by-side pictures of fast food advertisements vs. reality. Yuck. We're especially disturbed by number 4, the canned whole chicken. Though, we suppose anyone buying a canned whole chicken is getting what they deserve. If you're on a diet, bookmark this page - anytime you're tempted by fast food, just take a peek.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Is that a side of brains with #7?
as much as the burger would look very different from the advertising photo, the pic on the right has terrible lighting.
A few years ago I ordered some nachos at Denny's...the photo made them look so good.
What I got was essentially a plate that looked like chips with diarrhea.
Truth in advertising!!!!!
See, these kind of articles always bug me. How are these places supposed to show their food? There's a reason they pay photographers all that scratch. All the tricks they use to keep the food looking tasty is part of the deal. Being disappointed in your 3 dollar hamburger from a fast food chain is silly.
There was a hot dog stand near my house growing up that had a sign for "the big bag o' grease special" (two hot dogs, fries mixed with onion rings) and that was honest advertising at it's best.
You must check out Food in Real Life (http://foodirl.com/) - it's hilarious!
Is that a side of brains with #7?
To be fair to Five Guys, Chuck isn't really a photographer. His beer shots demonstrate regularly that he isn't that interested in presentation. Which is his choice. His writing is good and beer choices are interesting, but a photographer he ain't.
This kind of thing is always pretty interesting, but not all that big of a shocker to anyone who, you know, eats fast or packaged food.
Someone should do an article along a similar vein of real apartments compared to television apartments set the same cities. Cousin Larry and Balki's apartment in Perfect Strangers was pretty swank for household sustained on a retail employee and goat herder's salaries.
* and later photojournalist.
You're paying about 5 dollars for that burger, why are you expecting it to look like the picture? Although i do find McDonalds is pretty close to the pictures, sometimes. So I eat there when I have a hankering for fast food, and I use this: http://www.foodncs.com/rd_p?p=191614&t=9526&a=330-smcdonal&gift=330
Food photography is a real art form. There is a lot of work that goes into it. C'mon, it's advertising. If they just took snapshots of the product slapped on a plate, no one would every buy it.
While the shot of the burger has some technical issues, it still clearly shows that the burger looks nothing like the ad selling it. Problem is, and I've worked in fast food for a good number of years is that most of the folks putting together the slop could care less about presentation. Especially as others commented, it's a $5 dollar burger. The only place I've seen burgers come out like the menu pics are at places like The Counter.. but then you're paying a hefty $12+ charge per burger.
I think the one on the right actually looks like it would taste better. Presentation is not important to a hamburger, in my opinion. I am going to get my fill of burgers before Obama and the liberal Food Police begin banning them and other food they deem unhealthy. After all, we can't be trusted to monitor our own diets.