Quote from: spiceyokooko on March 19, 2013, 07:25 PM
I'm not convinced that appearance guides our choice in terms of what something should taste like. It's a con perpetuated upon us by wily restauranteurs to mislead us into thinking dishes are going to taste better than they actually are.

It's not a con, it's a valid application of psychology.  If it looks as we want it to, it is more likely to taste as we want it to.

QuoteThat's not to say a dish's appearance isn't important, it is, but when we sit down in a BIR restaurant to select from the menu, we make choices on dish descriptions, and past taste experience - not on what they look like.

In a conventional BIR, agreed, because the menu is primarily prose.  In a buffet-style BIR such as the Sunday buffet in Coxheath or every day in So Asia (Ealing) we judge by the appearance.  In an restaurant such as Thai-An, where customers are not expected to be overly familiar with the cuisine, by both (whence the photographs in the menu : sadly there was space for only a few).   In practice, the appearance will be a better clue to the quality of the dish than any amount of "sun-kissed under tropical skies, drizzled with a unique jus fermented from the virgin milk of a hand-reared camel" and all that b******s.  Past taste experience, yes :  that is why we go back to the good places and eschew the bad ones, and why we rapidly abandon the good ones when they turn bad.

** Phil.

Quote from: Phil [Chaa006] on March 19, 2013, 07:40 PMIf it looks as we want it to, it is more likely to taste as we want it to.

I can't say I agree with that and in my opinion it's exactly the reason a lot of people on this site have problems with the dishes they make. They make something look right, but then find it doesn't taste right, because they haven't cooked it right.

Just because something looks right, doesn't mean it will taste right. Just because I can make something look like I want it to in no way means it will taste like I want it to.

As I've said previously, for me, taste is king. I don't care what it looks like, if it tastes good to me, that's what I'll eat.

Usually, if it tastes good, it will also look good, because it's been cooked properly. No amount of artificial colourant twiddling will change that.

Quote from: spiceyokooko on March 19, 2013, 07:50 PM
Just because something looks right, doesn't mean it will taste right.

I agree, and I think that we are reaching convergence :  my point is solely that if it looks right, it is /more likely/ to taste right than if it looks completely wrong (e.g., green tandoori chicken).  No amount of fiddling with the appearance can make something taste right if it was wrong in the first place, but given two identically prepared dishes, one of which looks the part and one of which looks just plain wrong, the former is more likely to taste better to the customer.

** Phil.

Quote from: spiceyokooko on March 19, 2013, 07:16 PM

Quote from: chonk on March 19, 2013, 07:08 PM
I'm not sure about that. The muslims of Kashmir did and do use the cockscomb plant, and they used and/or still use "Ratan Jot" (Alkanna tinctoria).

Interesting.

Do you have any more information on why they used these? Was it for religious reasons? I was reading yesterday that Indian Muslims exempted certain vegetables from their fast for some reason, something to do with the health properties or religious.

Not sure again, but I think they use it mainly because it's a "proper" vegetable leaf, something other cultures do consume regularly, too. (cockscomb) The Alkanna just gives colour, or so it seems. But I read somewhere that the "Ratan Jot" (the hindi name) grows in the kashmir area, and that would be enough, to go right into some kashmiri dish ;P But indians do love colour, though. They add turmeric to almost any dish, to enhance the colour, but as far as I'm concerned, not always exclusively. Turmeric is the holiest spice over there, pretty healthy and enhances the flavour. If you add too much of any spice at some point, you could also add a little pinch of turmeric extra, and it could possibly save your day. And as far as I remember, the coloured pilau goes back originally to the persian folks. The indians adopted their methods, because they liked the look and taste.

I believe you are talking about the kashmiri pandits. They don't use garlic and onions, but fennel seeds, hing, ginger and curd/yoghurt. But they aren't muslims, but a hindu caste. Jains avoid garlic and onions (and many other things), too. The Hare Krishna cuisine also doesn't use garlic and onions. But kashmiri muslims use it quite extensively (:

Greetings!

edit: Just realize that "Rogan Josh" is, originally, a persian dish, too. So it would make sense, that traditional kashmiri plants, that also add a red colour, weren't used originally, and the colour could really just be the product of tomatoes. There are some theories, that the name itself comes from the red colour of the dish, and it could be, that the persians already used something to colour it. We know they did it with their rice, though. But I'd love to know what they used exactly for the green and red rice grains back then. Especially the green ones.

Quote from: Phil [Chaa006] on March 19, 2013, 07:07 PM
  I add green, red and yellow food colourings to my pulao rice (separately, well separated, and in small quantities only) so that the rice meets my expectations as to what a "good" pulao rice will look like.  If I can achieve the right balance of colours, the rice /will/ taste better as a result (so long as my spicing is also up to par).

:

I think you're in the minority there Phil. 
As i was reading this it reminded me of a photo CA posted of some rice. I'd forgotten that it was you alone who didn't like the look of his rice. 

https://curry-recipes.co.uk/curry/index.php/topic,8422.msg74367.html#msg74367

When i've viewed houses for sale in the past or if i'm watching a property prog on tv, I have the sense to see past all the staging and i see the rooms themselves. All the fancy accessories dont fool me.
The same goes for food, its not about the decoration but ultimately the taste.

Quote from: DalPuri on March 19, 2013, 08:51 PM

I think you're in the minority there Phil. 
As i was reading this it reminded me of a photo CA posted of some rice. I'd forgotten that it was you alone who didn't like the look of his rice. 

To be slightly more accurate, it was only I who said so in public.  I don't think either of us have the faintest idea how the vast majority of the members of the forum viewed it.  But it is also worth recording CA's own response to my critique :

Quote from: Cory Ander on May 23, 2012, 06:18 AM

Quote from: Phil (Chaa006) on May 22, 2012, 03:27 PM
But for me, a pulao rice needs to have more colour differentiation between the grains -- the white grains (the majority) should be a clear, clean, white, whilst the coloured grains should be few in number and saturated [1].  In your rice, the grains seems to be a sort of uniform creamy yellow, which I don't personally find appealing or appetising.  But that's just me : I am sure that many will be more than happy to enthuse about its presentation.

Interesting point, Phil, and not one that I would necessarily disagree with. 

Your are totally correct that the grains in mine are "sort of uniform creamy yellow" since I deliberately made them so.  The reason for this is that the rice was left over from a large dish of Chicken Biriani I cooked for a large group of people, which included none curry eating Aussies!  And, from experience, I know that Aussies (and even many British expats!) tend to shy away from highly coloured rice (even though, like you, I personally prefer it that way).

It might be interesting to try a poll, and see which style of rice presentation CR0 members /do/ prefer (or at least, those interested in taking part in the debate) :

Exhibit A :



Exhibit B :



** Phil.

I would go for the first one because to me, that looks like it has some flavour running through it rather than coloured grains of plain rice 

Like when you're boiling rice and using the curry coated spoon to stir it. Also, its the same colour as some of the best rice i've ever tasted which is sold by a couple from Wolves who run the curry van on market day in Machynlleth.

Quote from: spiceyokooko on March 19, 2013, 05:49 PM
...sometimes you have to take a leap of faith from what your eyes tell you...

I agree.

Quote
No they haven't, at least not artificially coloured, that's a modern invention.

Not artificially, through naturally available plants etc. I have recently researched colourings though haven't saved any data (didn't seem relevant at the time) I do have this from a site I found:

The Kashmiri muslims use lots of onion, garlic and also the dried flower of the cockscomb plant commonly known as Maval in Kashmir. Maval provides the dish its distinct bright red color. Maval surprisingly is in itself a substitute for Ratan Jot (Alkanet Root) which was the preferred ingredient to impart color not only to Roganjosh but also Tandoori chicken during the Moghul period.

Quote from: DalPuri on March 19, 2013, 09:13 PM
I would go for the first one because to me, that looks like it has some flavour running through it rather than coloured grains of plain rice 

Me too, for similar reasons.

Quote from: Axe on March 19, 2013, 09:32 PM
Not artificially, through naturally available plants etc. I have recently researched colourings though haven't saved any data (didn't seem relevant at the time) I do have this from a site I found

Fair enough, I stand corrected then on the widespread use of natural colourants used in traditional Indian cookery. And I appreciate your research, I was aware of the use of alkanet root interestingly

I still don't agree that we as home cooks should copy the practices of modern BIR's in using artificial colourings though.