I've generally heard (for example, from talks by Fr. Andrew Damick) that Eucharistic Adoration (that is, the exposition of the Eucharist for private adoration outside the liturgy) is an un-Orthodox practice, as it separates the Eucharist from its proper context as something to be eaten, not a talisman.
And yet, Ware's The Orthodox Church
, at least in some editions, doesn't say it's an "un-Orthodox" practice in the sense that there's something wrong with it, just that the way it's done in the West isn't an Eastern practice.
I'm wary of the new apologists for Orthodoxy who appear at times to see everything through an "East = Good, West = Bad" paradigm. The West had to deal with numerous challenges to the doctrine of the Eucharist, and it's no surprise that Eucharistic devotion sprung out of that context, as a way of affirming the true faith regarding the Eucharist. If the East never had this problem, good.
But I doubt Fr Damick would agree that icon veneration is an un-Orthodox practice, as it separates iconography from its proper context as ecclesiastical adornment and catechism for the illiterate, not as "windows into heaven" through which veneration passes to the prototype (that's the same logic he applies to Eucharistic adoration). Because icon veneration came under attack in certain regions in the East, the theology had to be expounded more thoroughly and devotion to icons increased. In places where iconodulia was not called into question, their role is less pronounced and probably reflects "pre-controversy" levels of importance. Where once it was called into question, now you have churches and cathedrals with icons on all walls, the ceiling, domes, on vessels, vestments, chandeliers, doors, bulletins, t-shirts, websites, kitschy bracelets, birthday cakes, just everywhere.
In such a context, it's rather ignorant, IMO, to criticise Eucharistic adoration as un-Orthodox, unless the argument is that Byzantine = Orthodox. And then, it's totally ignorant.