I wonder what the wattage is of the new bulbs?

Cathy2 wrote:HI,

Thanks for the copy and paste, it really helps!

I wasn't too thrilled with my one visit there. One of them was our waiter asking us not to use flash, "At the request of the Chef." You cannot take decent pictures in that tinted lighting. The very next evening, Gary went and freely snapped away with flash without any such comments.

Now that I think about it, why not take pictures in that atrocious lighting, then post them as-is. If anyone complains the food looks lousy, explain it was taken in the environment provided by the restaurant.

I know what you mean about the lighting. My pictures posted upthread were taken san flash, but it took some doing to color correct everyting and even then, I don't feel that they are as good as they could have been.

stevez wrote:I know what you mean about the lighting. My pictures posted upthread were taken san flash, but it took some doing to color correct everyting and even then, I don't feel that they are as good as they could have been.

I didn't even attempt to color correct mine. I usually don't have to if I set the white balance. But for some reason, my white balance wouldn't register in graham elliot's twilight zone. Needless to say, my photos turned out abysmally. The "short rib stroganoff" is a square of BLACK on the plate in my photo.

stevez wrote:I know what you mean about the lighting. My pictures posted upthread were taken san flash, but it took some doing to color correct everyting and even then, I don't feel that they are as good as they could have been.

Most of the time when you color correct, you have at least a sense of what the food looked like. This yellow tinted lighting distorted the food enough that unless you took your plate to the kitchen or bathroom, you don't really know how it looked (beyond their staging).

Interesting even the color correction software couldn't grasp what to do.

I wonder if this is a cosmic joke to defeat people taking pictures of the food there.

Regards,

Hi,

At least you got the short rib stroganoff. I didn't. The waiter had the nerve to push, push, push the stroganoff. When we gave up a dish to fit the stroganoff in, guess what? He didn't deliver the stroganoff, instead he substituted back the original dish we subtracted without discussing it with us.

There is a bit more to gripe about, just not enough time.

Regards,

Cathy2 wrote:Hi,

At least you got the short rib stroganoff. I didn't. The waiter had the nerve to push, push, push the stroganoff. When we gave up a dish to fit the stroganoff in, guess what? He didn't deliver the stroganoff, instead he substituted back the original dish we subtracted without discussing it with us.

Yipes. I'll await to hear whether and how your responded to this.

ulterior epicure wrote:

stevez wrote:I know what you mean about the lighting. My pictures posted upthread were taken san flash, but it took some doing to color correct everyting and even then, I don't feel that they are as good as they could have been.

I didn't even attempt to color correct mine. I usually don't have to if I set the white balance. But for some reason, my white balance wouldn't register in graham elliot's twilight zone. Needless to say, my photos turned out abysmally. The "short rib stroganoff" is a square of BLACK on the plate in my photo.

Cathy2 wrote:Most of the time when you color correct, you have at least a sense of what the food looked like. This yellow tinted lighting distorted the food enough that unless you took your plate to the kitchen or bathroom, you don't really know how it looked (beyond their staging).

Interesting even the color correction software couldn't grasp what to do.

I wonder if this is a cosmic joke to defeat people taking pictures of the food there.

Sadly, my story is the same. Even using my grayscale card, the lighting was such that I could not color-correct my pictures. I doubt chef has given this any thought, as the number of diners who take pictures is probably a fairly small percentage. The lighting sets a very specific mood and I'm guessing that's the goal, which is acheived nicely.

=R=

Eat early and sit by the window. Lots of natural light.

Or bring one of these to the table.

Although the notion of a chef deliberately lighting his place weird to defeat photography is pretty damn hilarious. You understand, this means WAR!

Mike G wrote:Eat early and sit by the window. Lots of natural light.

Yeah, the pics I took while sitting at the bar before our meal were great. But who likes to look at pics of people?!

=R=

ronnie_suburban wrote:

Mike G wrote:Eat early and sit by the window. Lots of natural light.

Yeah, the pics I took while sitting at the bar before our meal were great. But who likes to look at pics of people?!

=R=

Or water.

Calling ChefGEB!

If you're out there, I need some help. My beloved Customary Dining Companion wants to try his hand at making your cheddar risotto, and has already procured most of the in the ingredients, including some Carnaroli rice from me for the risotto. He's confused about one thing in your recipe, though, specifically about the rice component. It simply states in the ingredient list, "3 cups cooked risotto," to which the ched bechamel and the other ingredients are added, and merely warmed. How should I tell him to deal with the rice? Saute the rice in butter, then add plain boiling water in the usual manner that one cooks a risotto, or is there a different way, e.g., simply steaming, par-cooking, etc.?

I want his first try at this dish to be successful, to avoid his becoming discouraged at producing either 1) crunchy rice or 2) overcooked paste, and the subsequent picketing of your restaurant. Thanks in advance!

sundevilpeg wrote:Calling ChefGEB!

If you're out there, I need some help. My beloved Customary Dining Companion wants to try his hand at making your cheddar risotto, and has already procured most of the in the ingredients, including some Carnaroli rice from me for the risotto. He's confused about one thing in your recipe, though, specifically about the rice component. It simply states in the ingredient list, "3 cups cooked risotto," to which the ched bechamel and the other ingredients are added, and merely warmed. How should I tell him to deal with the rice? Saute the rice in butter, then add plain boiling water in the usual manner that one cooks a risotto, or is there a different way, e.g., simply steaming, par-cooking, etc.?

I want his first try at this dish to be successful, to avoid his becoming discouraged at producing either 1) crunchy rice or 2) overcooked paste, and the subsequent picketing of your restaurant. Thanks in advance!

sundevil,

I searched, and can't find any ChefGEB post with a recipe for this dish. When you say "It states..." - what, exactly is the "it"? Thanks.

Kennyz

Kennyz wrote:sundevil,
I searched, and can't find any ChefGEB post with a recipe for this dish. When you say "It states..." - what, exactly is the "it"? Thanks.
Kennyz

It was in the Trib a week ago.... ah here

Grab it quick, I'd guess, the Tribune's website doesn't tend to keep things around for a long time.

It's funny, because the recipe is full of details, including the age of the cheese to buy, and includes a separate sub-recipe for the bechamel, but with the risotto, it's every man for himself, literally. That darned GEB!

Also, to anyone who missed the recipe, it was in the "Q" section of the Sunday, 8/21 Trib - not the "Good Eating" section. It was featured on "The Guy Page." (!)

My sister and I dined at Graham Elliot last night and had a very nice experience. I had actually had a mid-June reservation, which I canceled, having lost a lot of my excitement about the place with all of the buzz and because of some of the tepid reviews I had read. This is just to say that I went in last night almost not wanting to like it.

My sister and I decided yesterday morning that we would meet for dinner, agreed that we wanted to try some place new. She suggested GE. I was surprised to find a slot on OpenTable, granted for 5:15. We may have been the first party seated, and we got the table right at the windows in the far corner of the restaurant. As tables filled up, the traffic inside reminded me a lot of Central Michel Richard in DC, without the open kitchen, of course—about the same number of tables, spacing, music and overall volume. I’m really glad we were seated where we were at GE. As someone who doesn’t like feeling like I’m in a sea of tables, especially in a dim space, I felt last night like we were more to ourselves, just our table and the big window.

I think the comparison GAF makes upthread to OTOM is a very apt one, though my preference is for GE. My sister said something toward the beginning of our meal (she’s not a foodie, despite my efforts to turn her into one, and is therefore someone who comments on her food in a way that is sometimes refreshingly naïve) that really captured what I liked most about GE. Taking her first bites of the Caesar salad, she said, “I feel like this is something I’ve eaten before, but it wasn’t a crouton.” She intended her comment as praise. It seems like what places like GE, OTOM and Central have set out to do is not wholly reimagine comfort food but rather reconfigure it. (I’ll fight the temptation to diverge into a discussion of Roland Barthes here; I’ll save it perhaps for an LTH happy hour at GE, with a few London Callings in me, I’m sure I could talk about Barthes in relation to Caesar salad for hours!)

The Caesar salad is an excellent example of reconfigured comfort food. Going in, I had no interest in trying this dish. Caesar salad is the quintessential comfort food for me, but because of my food OCD, I eat it in only one context: as my post-race food, only after big races and accompanied only be steak fries. I otherwise never eat it. I took the bite my sister offered only because I rarely refuse to try something at least once.



The dish completely surprised me. The “Twinkie”-crouton was perfect in flavor, texture and amount of filling. Also, the croutons last night were bigger than I had seen in pictures. I liked the play of scale on the plate. My sister was the one to point out the novelty of eating a salad in a way that you could actually control the size of the lettuce bite by bite since you were cutting your own romaine. I really liked this aspect of the dish, not having to deal with the usual too-large lettuce pieces that then have to be cut awkwardly.

For my cold starter, I had the beet salad, which was plated more handsomely than I had seen in pictures before.



This dish was probably the least impressive of our meal last night. The flavor combination was very familiar to me. Also, I didn’t think anything of the lightness of the chèvre. It was perfectly enjoyable, just not distinctive in any way.

For our hot starters, my sister had the artichoke (?) bisque, and I had the gnocchi.





The latter was really beautiful. I’m glad our waiter told me to break up the egg and mix everything well. I probably would have done it anyway but not as emphatically. I felt like the mixing was a little magic trick that transformed the dish. The first bite (well, and every one after that) was superb. I loved the play of flavors and textures and weights. Egg yolk is such a miraculous thing.

For the third course, we had the short rib stroganoff and the lamb with Israeli cous cous and pine nut salad.





The crème fraîche with the stroganoff overwhelmed and therefore turned me off to that dish. The lamb, however, was outstanding on all counts. It reminded me a little of a lamb dish I had at L’Etoile in Madison earlier this summer, but the dish at GE was far superior because there was a nuanced play of flavors but the taste of the meat remained front and center. It was cooked to a beautiful medium.

Both my sister and I were quite full by the end of the third course, so we chose to share a dessert, the recommended and well-documented dark chocolate brownie with peanut ice cream, brûléed banana and crushed chocolate malt balls.



I easily ate 2/3 of this as it was very yummy. I could have sworn that our waitress described the dish when it arrived at our table as having crushed malt balls, “commonly known as Milk Duds.” As soon as she left, I looked at my sister and whispered, “Whoppers?” My sister had not been listening to the waitress so she couldn’t tell me if I had heard incorrectly. It’s very possible I was wrong since I was in a few cocktails and some wine deep at that point. The possible misidentification of the candy was somewhat disturbing but ultimately did not cloud the dessert at all…as it was very yummy.

All in all, the food, drink, service and value were very, very good. I think I may have had an easier time than others assessing GE because I never made it to Avenues while Chef was there. What I know of his food—that is, direct experience—is limited to my experience yesterday. I look forward to eating from the fall menu and also seeing what it would be like to stop in and just sit at the bar. My sister and I saw Chef on the way out last night. I had never seen him in person before. GWiv is right. He is cherubic.

Wow - the early bird gets the best photos! Great natural lighting!

Thanks for the report!

And, yes, that lamb was thrilling. Although between it and the chicken, I'm not sure which I liked better.

Beautiful post, Sharon. This and the recently-published GEB aged cheddar risotto recipe have revitalized my interest in a visit.

Santander wrote:Beautiful post, Sharon. This and the recently-published GEB aged cheddar risotto recipe have revitalized my interest in a visit.

Sharon,
Beautiful post, indeed. Like you, I went in expecting not to like GE. But the "fact" is that GEB and and Roland Liccioni are the best cooks in Chicago, and - imo - can do no wrong in the kitchen. (well, OK, I guess I would prefer it if he would replace that asparagus in the gnocchi with something more in-season. and a garnish a little more creative than what seems to be the exact same sprig of flat parsley on 3 dishes in a row would be nice. But I quibble.)
kz

Whoa. I had that exact same beef stroganoff last night only it looked absotively-posolutely nothing like yours did.

Went to Graham Elliot on Friday evening. The entire evening was nearly perfect, excepting my disappointment over the removal of the aged cheddar risotto from the menu. I had so badly wanted to try that dish.

Whatever lingering sadness I had was wiped clean by our first dish, the foie gras mousse. This was like having dessert before the main. It was that good. We followed that up with the tuna menage a trois and the crisp pork belly. The boy's favorite dish was the pork, and while I thought the tuna was delicious, nothing else in the meal was able to surpass that initial foie dish for me.

I'm still very new with foie gras; I can't seem to remember many of the places I ate at back home (Portland, Oregon) serving foie. This could be my own bad luck, or it could be because we're all huge hippies, or, perhaps most likely, both.

I don't mind the dark so much, I quite like the twilight atmosphere they have going on; but I recall at one point early on the boy asking, shocked, "you can read that?!" So it may have been a bit dark for him. At any rate, I thought the evening was a smashing success.

CL

Interesting happenings.

And they say that bloggers don't count!

who would ever say a silly thing like that?

We (meaning me) are very excited about GE 2.0.

ChefGEB wrote:who would ever say a silly thing like that?

{emoticon for noogie}

Is the menu that is currently up on the restaurant's site indicative of “new direction?" These things are subjective of course, but I'm not sure it is, as Bowles sez, any more "provocative and creative and whimsical" than before...

chezbrad wrote:Is the menu that is currently up on the restaurant's site indicative of “new direction?" These things are subjective of course, but I'm not sure it is, as Bowles sez, any more "provocative and creative and whimsical" than before...

What, you don't find Budweiser froth whimsical?

Chicago Business article wrote:The star chef abandoned the comfort-food menu ... menu items were familiar — think tuna carpaccio and chicken breast

One has to wonder whether the author ever actually went to Graham Elliott, or bothered to look at the former menu in researching this article. That description paints an extraordinarily inaccurate picture of what he's been serving since day 1.

I'm hoping you find what you need to do well and stay in business **and to be happy about it**

Do you think maybe it's the location? That's been a bunch of places, hasn't it ?