Anyone who eats out is now a potential food critic who can’t talk about food without showing it. Images are often blurry (a bit of frosting gone astray, perhaps?) or overexposed. And when will diners learn to turn off the flash? Not only would it improve the photo, it would make taking it a less intrusive experience for the other guests — you know, the ones trying to enjoy their meals.

The issue of amateur shutterbugs impacting the dining scene has been the subject of much fuss of late. Chef Cooper, for one, generated a ton of publicity last month with his rule that guests refrain from taking photos of the food at Rogue 24. His reason: The photos often suck.

Y&H wants to know: Do you care if the table next to you is snapping portraits of their meals? Or, do you think that diners are entitled to visually document the various foodstuffs they have paid for?

Amateurish photo of olives by Chris Shott

Food Network Humor revels in its self-imposed role to bring the foodie cable channel to its knees — or at least "back down to Earth." This posting on ugly tattoos is a little off-target for the site, but hilarious nonetheless.

By Y&H's unofficial count, the breakdown of tats goes like this:

Processed foods: 3

Fast food chains: 4

Raw meats: 3 (if you include the cuts of pork chart)

Fruits and vegetables: 2 (but only if you include the thing that looks like an animated potato)

Composed plates: 2

Cliched dangerous chef culture: 1

Smart-ass ignoramus: 1, the D.L.T sandwich (dolphin-lettuce-tomato)

And the winning category...

Generic junk foods: 9

The most disturbing image has to be the Silence of the Lambs dude with the McDonaldland characters inked across his chest. Makes me shiver just looking at it.

Any other tats out there you'd care to share with Y&H?

Photo courtesy of Food Network Humor