6 Responses

• 

  On 17 April 2008 Gj said:

  This is very difficult to look at :(

• 

  On 18 April 2008 garima sharma said:

  ... this is heart breaking :( im sure it hurt as hell to take this shot...

• 

  On 18 April 2008 Richard Bruns said:

  It's absolutely sadistic and there is no point to have this in JPG.

• 

  On 18 April 2008 Richard Bruns said:

  ADDENDUM: Given the general mission of JPG I believe this photo is totally inappropriate. People viewing range (the youngest I've seen is 14) from 14 to 90. While I am a photojournalist who has published fairly intense images, there is always editorial discretion: What is the value of the image vs the hurt and suffering the image may cause. JPG does not pretend to be journalistic in its goals and I find this image totally inappropriate. I'm not against truth in photography. I am in favor of appropriate images for the designated publiction.
  Thank you

• 

  On 23 April 2008 rebecca joelson said:

  I agree with Richard. I'm sad I saw it.

• On 29 April 2008 william rugen said:

  actually I think the general mission of jpg is to promote photography in general, or as they say on this website: "JPG Magazine is for people who love imagemaking". this is an image. it also says a lot about creatures and their place in our society, and the way they are often treated by our as throw away objects. or perhaps it was posted as a response to all the "cutesy" pet shots that have been posted. that is still a valid reason to post it.
  you say it is intense and makes you sad. well isn't that part of what images are supposed to do, create an emotional response?
  as for worrying about 14 and 90 year-olds having to see this, I am guessing they have all seen roadkill before, so don't worry about them too much, I bet they can handle it.