Friday, July 09, 2010

Photos: Anticipation

I work close to the Hudson River in Manhattan and often go there to take pictures.  Many of the pictures that I put on this blog were taken in Hudson River Park. 

In the park there is a dog run where dog owners can take their dogs to play.  While there, the dogs get to run around, frolic in the pool on hot days and chase balls thrown by owners.  I snapped this shot while a woman was tossing the ball around for the dogs.


Canon XSi 75-300mm lens @ 130mm, f/4.5, 1/125 second

As always, comments, critiques and criticisms are welcome, encouraged and appreciated.

The Wolf

For my other photos, click here.

52 comments:

Eeees said...

Ball? BALL!! Who has the ball? I WANT THE BALL!!!!
(Why won't she throw the ball???)

I LOVE THIS PICTURE!!!

Anonymous said...

"As always, comments, critiques and criticisms are welcome, encouraged and appreciated."

A DOG?! Perhaps the most un-Jewish of animals. i.e. See Kesef Mishna which brings the Gemora supporting the Rambam in Mesechtes Bava Kama 15:2 not to have a dog in your house.

and Rambam Hilchos Talmud Torah 6:14, and Hilchos Nizkei Mamon 5:9, Chazon Ish on Choshen Mishpat Likutim 18:9.

Feh.

BrooklynWolf said...

Anon,

First of all, I would think that a pig is the quintessential non-Jewish animal.

Nonetheless, this is not my dog. If you bothered to even read the introduction, you would have seen that I took this picture at a public location.

Please show me some source where it says that it is assur to take a picture of a dog.

The Wolf

Anonymous said...

It isn't. Nor is it assur to take a pictur of a "cute" Pig and post it to your blog.

Perhaps a suggestion for your next post, considering your reply.

BrooklynWolf said...

So, as long as we're agreed that it's not assur, you have no grounds to give me grief on the matter.

The Wolf

Anonymous said...

If you put a picture of a sizzling slice of chazer next to a tasty looking cheeseburger on your site, I most surely do have grounds to give you grief -- even though there is nothing "assur" about the picture.

BrooklynWolf said...

If you put a picture of a sizzling slice of chazer next to a tasty looking cheeseburger on your site, I most surely do have grounds to give you grief

Why? Are you afraid that my picture will entice some Jew to eat the dogs?

ATTENTION PEOPLE:

Dogs are not kosher! Do not eat the dogs. REPEAT: DO NOT EAT THE DOGS!

Thank you.

The Wolf

Anonymous said...

http://puppybeef.com/

Dave said...

That Puppy Beef looks good. I hope someone comes out with a kosher imitation.

BrooklynWolf said...

Anon,

So what are you saying? That people will want to eat dogs if I put a picture of them up?

The Wolf

Master said...

I wonder what dog meat tastes like.

Anonymous said...

Why don't you shecht your dog and ask someone to taste it for you?

It isn't assur, as Wolf would say.

megapixel said...

it tastes like chicken.
the dogs are adorable. therefore, please dont eat them

Ari said...

Love it. Dog in foreground looks like the long-suffering butt of the other dog's practical jokes. Terrific composition and tack-sharp focus of the foreground.

Master said...

Puppy meat tastes like chicken?? A chicken is a bird.

Anonymous said...

very nice picture.
crazy comments... why don't you moderate?

MO Spokesman said...

moderate?!

MODERATE?!!

You must mean CENSORSHIP.

Communist.

BrooklynWolf said...

Thanks for the compliment.

As a general rule, I don't moderate comments. I firmly believe that those worthy of merit will shine and distinguish themselves based on their content. And those that are just insane, well... I'm also a believer in the theory of "give 'em enough rope..."

The only time I actively moderate comments is (a) spam, (b) outright obscenity or (c) specific personal attacks directed at other posters or their families.

Other than that, I'd much rather have an open forum -- even if that means allowing some otherwise less-than-stellar comments in.

The Wolf

Anonymous said...

I can't believe that #1 got all riled up about the fact that there are dogs in the picture. What about the HAND? It's a WOMAN's hand. A picture of a woman's hand?Oy!

Anonymous said...

Anon - Why are you not dan lkaf zchus. Surely it is a males hand.

BrooklynWolf said...

I explicitly stated in the post that it's a female's hand.

The Wolf

Anonymous said...

Oh, I see Wolf indicated it was a woman. Nevertheless, we can still be dan than he purposely didn't fully photograph her.

BrooklynWolf said...

Well, I did purposely leave her out of the picture, but not for tznius reasons.

I did it because I wanted the dogs and the ball to be the focus of the picture, not the woman.

The Wolf

Anonymous said...

You mean she was dressed tznius according to halachic standards?

BrooklynWolf said...

You mean she was dressed tznius according to halachic standards?

I don't remember.

The Wolf

Anonymous said...

Wouldn't the fact you wouldn't stick around a non-tznius woman long enough to photograph her dogs remind you that she was dressed tznius even in the summer?

BrooklynWolf said...

I wasn't really paying attention to the people. The real reason I went to the dog run was (shockingly!) to photograph dogs.

The Wolf

Anonymous said...

So you paid more attention to dogs than humans?? How sad...

BrooklynWolf said...

So you paid more attention to dogs than humans?? How sad...

When I go somewhere like a dog run to specifically photograph dogs? Then yes, I do. I do the same for plants and flowers when I go to the Botanic Gardens.

Or is it such a crime, in your opinion, to photograph something other than people when people are around?

The Wolf

Anonymous said...

I didn't say anything about a crime, just about it being sad.

Chazal were not fond of dogs, to put it mildly. The rabbinic literature surely say (i.e. .' 1 שו"ת עטרת פז חלק ראשון כרך ג' חו"מ סי' ח) that a Jew shouldn't own a dog.

BrooklynWolf said...

Why is it so sad to take a photograph of something other than a person (assuming that a person is around)? What's wrong with setting out to take a picture of a non-human subject that makes it so "sad?"

And, once again, I do not own the dogs in question -- so it's really irrelevant.

The Wolf

Anonymous said...

Here's a nice discussion of Should Jews Own Dogs?:

http://aliyahblog.com/2008/05/15/the-halachot-of-dogs/

Anonymous said...

Would you set out to take pictures of pigs?

To quote:

ואנשי קדש תהיון לי ובשר נבלה וטרפה לא תאכלו – לכלב תשלכון אותו

And you should be a holy people unto me, and do not eat meat that is neveila or treifa – you should instead throw it out to the dog (Shemot 23:30).Here the Torah says that since we are a holy people, we should not eat neveila or treifa meat. And where should this meat go? To the dogs. Thus, regardless of whether or not it is permissible to own a dog, you see here that the Torah identifies dogs as the opposite of something Holy, and something that should be far removed from a Jewish home.

BrooklynWolf said...

Again, I do not own these or any other dogs*. So, it's irrelevant.

The Wolf


* Well, I do have several stuffed dogs, but that's another matter.

BrooklynWolf said...

Is there not a midrash that says that dogs are to receive treif meat as a *reward* for their lack of action on the night of yetzias mitzrayim?

But, again, it's *still* irrelevant. I don't own the dogs, I merely took their picture. If that bothers you, then I suppose there's not much more for us to talk about.

Until you can show me somewhere where it says that it's assur to take a picture of a dog, I'll just keep shooting away.

The Wolf

And, while we're at it, I'm still waiting for an answer to my other question:

If I go to the Botanic Garden (just to get away from the issue of dogs), why is it so "sad" that I shoot the flowers and trees rather than the people?

The Wolf

Anonymous said...

See my July 14, 2010 3:17 PM post.

It explains why whether or not it is permissible to own a dog, you see here that the Torah identifies dogs as the opposite of something Holy, and something that should be far removed from a Jewish person.

BrooklynWolf said...

OK, right. As I said, when you show me where it's actually assur to take a picture of a dog, I'll stop.

And I notice that you haven't answered my other question.

The Wolf

Anonymous said...

Wolf: If you dont understand the concept of holiness, this discussion can progress no further.

Not everything is based upon is it or is it not allowable under the letter of the law.

I wish you well.

BrooklynWolf said...

Wolf: If you dont understand

Likewise, if you can't understand the concept that not everyone has to live up to what *you* perceive to be proper and holy, then the discussion can progress no further.

I, too, wish you well.

The Wolf

gavra@work said...

Who is that idiot (for lack of a better term) with the dog problem?

The gemorah discusses cats to be a much bigger issue, and only has a problem with a Kelev Ra. The pasuk is actually a proof that dogs should be kept (as how can you thrown to the dogs if there are none?) Sheep are even more assur then that (see Bava Kama for more details).

Just wanted to make sure all is well.

G@W

Dave said...

"Who is that idiot (for lack of a better term) with the dog problem?"

The Torah including the Gemorah.

Now who is this idiot with a problem with the Gemorah?

P.S. I don't know anyone with per Sheeps they coodle with.

Dave said...

"pet" Sheeps, rather.

Anonymous said...

The possuk is not proof, it may mean wild dogs.

I believe that the problem with owning a dog is indeed because of "kelev ra". However, even if you have a good dog that doesn't mean that other people will know it is a good dog upon seeing it. IIRC, the problem of kelev ra is that a pregnant woman will miscarry from fear. But with a good dog, by the time you reassure her that it's a good dog she has already quailed out of fear and it is too late.

Apple pie can (yeshivish speak for "even so"), I do own a dog.

Anonymous said...

I don't understand the questioning about whether or not the woman was dressed b'tznius. Regardless of that detail, her FULL AND EXPOSED hand is shown in graphic detail in this picture. Outrageous! Come on Wolf, I know you say how ignorant you are, but surely you are not this ignorant?

Anonymous said...

The problem isn't the picture, but rather what the photographer saw at the time the woman in question was in front of him.

Anonymous said...

Honestly, who cares! Get over your self-absorbed, self-righteous selves. It's a picture of 2 dogs, taken at a wonderful moment in time. When last checked, they are Hashem's creatures, worthy of being saved on the tevah (or, at least, some ancestor of theirs was) and praised for acting against nature and not barking when the Yidden were taken out of Mitzrayim (again, ancestors, not these two specific dogs.
Just because Wolf encourages commentary about a photo, doesn't mean he needs or wants to hear all the stupid comments regarding whether or not one should have a dog in a Jewish home. Nor does one need to comment about a hand (A HAND!!) in a picture. When last checked, hands, even those belonging to women, are not considered a tzniut issue. Honestly! You people need to get a life!

Lion of ZIon said...

check email

Anonymous said...

FTR, I am the commentor who posted about the hand, and I assure you that I was being completely facetious.

I am hardly cultured when it comes to the arts, and I would never post a comment about Wolf's photos. I was merely belittling the comment criticizing Wolf for photoing a dog.

Anonymous said...

To the 4:45 Anonymous:

Thanks for clearing up.

Anonymous said...

To 7:44

That was someone else clarifying.

Anonymous said...

"Anonymous said...
To 7:44

That was someone else clarifying."

And you know that how? Reread the comment and you'll see that it was obviously a joke.

Anonymous said...

Don't kid a kidder.