The Terror of War—Was Nick Ut's "Napalm Girl" photo taken with a Pentax camera?

[pgh]

In the end none of us know. I’ve stated my opinion, and yes, even though eyewitness accounts are fallible, the agenda motive of the film seems suspect enough to me to call its central claim into question. No need to agree.

am quite confident that if you or i had won a Pulitzer prize whether we knew we have earned it or not,

With respect, your confidence is misplaced. I would have no issue renouncing it if I didn’t make the work. I wouldn’t even want it if it weren’t earned. (It wouldn’t be, ever, for me I don’t even make pictures that would try to be relevant for the categories - thankfully I have this clarity.)

For better or worse I know a few Pulitzer winners. Some are great people, some are monumental, selfish assholes, and the award does nothing really speak to their body of work or their character, nor would it to mine or anyone else. It also fades into obscurity for most winners. Most award winners are forgotten - how many can you remember, really?. Napalm Girl doesn’t remain powerful because of the Pulitzer. It does because it was a defining picture of the era - award or not. Most photography legends don’t have a Pulitzer. I just don’t see it as a powerful motive to lie and stake your career on. If it is indeed that strong for someone, that is one sad person who has none of the important things in life. I admit, that does speak to some professional photographers. It is indeed a rough job that can take everything else sacred from you. Just my opinion.

 

[AusDLK]

drink your koolaid kid.. drink your koolaid.

next youll be telling me that the cat in the hat is real, because you saw a movie and a book about the cat in the hat..

Mr. Omega, please take a chill pill. i am far from a kid.

your "cat in the hat" comment is, well, just as pointless as "King Arthur."

what IS your point?

 

[AusDLK]

In the end none of us know. I’ve stated my opinion, and yes, even though eyewitness accounts are fallible, the agenda motive of the film seems suspect enough to me to call its central claim into question. No need to agree.

With respect, your confidence is misplaced. I would have no issue renouncing it if I didn’t make the work. I wouldn’t even want it if it weren’t earned. (It wouldn’t be, ever, for me I don’t even make pictures that would try to be relevant for the categories - thankfully I have this clarity.)

For better or worse I know a few Pulitzer winners. Some are great people, some are monumental, selfish assholes, and the award does nothing really speak to their body of work or their character, nor would it to mine or anyone else. It also fades into obscurity for most winners. Most award winners are forgotten - how many can you remember, really?. Napalm Girl doesn’t remain powerful because of the Pulitzer. It does because it was a defining picture of the era - award or not. Most photography legends don’t have a Pulitzer. I just don’t see it as a powerful motive to lie and stake your career on. If it is indeed that strong for someone, that is one sad person who has none of the important things in life. I admit, that does speak to some professional photographers. It is indeed a rough job that can take everything else sacred from you. Just my opinion.

beyond the film's motive/agenda, i think we are 100% in agreement actually. perhaps i haven't made myself as clear as i'd like to have.

 

[BillBingham2]

as a former software engineer over some 40 years, i know a little bit about this.

you are essentially correct in general about kids and AI but your argument falls fact because there are legit photographs to corraborate the 3D modeling showing where people were at a point in time, how far apart they were, etc.. where might we find the photographic evidence to corraborate King Arthur doing anything?

and how do you know they recreated things to suite anything? have you closely examined the 3D models? have you cross referenced them with photographs used to create the models?

no.

and i haven't either. all i have been saying from the outset of my contribution to this thread is that the evidence presented in the film is very compelling that Ut could not have taken the famous photograph.

i would love it if someone took it upon themselves to use the same set of photographs and create 3D models in an effort to prove the opposite.

drink your koolaid kid.. drink your koolaid.

next youll be telling me that the cat in the hat is real, because you saw a movie and a book about the cat in the hat..

I've kicked around lots of different areas and tools including the space creating presentations for legal proceedings in the 40+ years I've been in Technology. Making it look compelling is much easier than it was a couple of decades ago. What hasn't changed is the amount of work required to insure your rendering is as accurate as possible. Just sticking a bunch of images into an AI engine doesn't always provide the accuracy I would demand if I was on the opposing side. I'm not saying the producers did or didn't check every frame from an hour before to an hour after, map it out who and where on paper, then enter it into a mapping program, have different people check this work.

When we do translations for critical text we used to have it translated, the from a different source translate it back and compare the two. Kind of what I'd be looking for here.

Not sure we'll ever have an answer that will convince a majority of people one way or another. That's ok, interesting story and perspective.

Please everyone, let's keep this factual and out of the personal weeds.

Thanks.

B2 (;->

 

[boojum]

I've kicked around lots of different areas and tools including the space creating presentations for legal proceedings in the 40+ years I've been in Technology. Making it look compelling is much easier than it was a couple of decades ago. What hasn't changed is the amount of work required to insure your rendering is as accurate as possible. Just sticking a bunch of images into an AI engine doesn't always provide the accuracy I would demand if I was on the opposing side. I'm not saying the producers did or didn't check every frame from an hour before to an hour after, map it out who and where on paper, then enter it into a mapping program, have different people check this work.

When we do translations for critical text we used to have it translated, the from a different source translate it back and compare the two. Kind of what I'd be looking for here.

Not sure we'll ever have an answer that will convince a majority of people one way or another. That's ok, interesting story and perspective.

Please everyone, let's keep this factual and out of the personal weeds.

Thanks.

B2 (;->

Back at the dawn of time when auto translation was new, one which was used to translate Russian to English and English to Russian was tested. The test phrase, "The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak" was sent into Russian and then back into English. What came back was, "The wine is good but the meat is bad." Back to the drawing boards. ;o)

OS/2 had the ability to understand the user-spoken words. It required reading a short Mark Twain story into the computer and then letting the computer run all night to get it understood. Google can now understand after hearing one word and is ready to go immediately in almost any language. Keep this in mind when judging AI.

 

[Out to Lunch]

Interview with Bao Nguyen, the director of The Stringer

 

[boojum]

Interview with Bao Nguyen, the director of The Stringer

The question indicates bias. You cannot correct history anymore than you can change any other aspect of the past. You can report what you believe to be true. The "believe to be true" is the tricky part.

 

[Out to Lunch]

The question indicates bias. You cannot correct history anymore than you can change any other aspect of the past.

Historians recognize the past, not as a fixed fact but as an ongoing interpretation. Just to be clear, the interviewer posed this question, not the film's director.

 

[boojum]

Historians recognize the past, not as a fixed fact but as an ongoing interpretation. Just to be clear, the interviewer posed this question, not the film's director.

I am a degreed historian. I know the trade pretty well.

 

[AusDLK]

i just watched the interview. two points. (1) any notion that the Bao had an agenda and was in this for personal gain (other than to make a film that he was proud of) goes straight out of the window (2) the interviewer should stick to his day job.

 

[Out to Lunch]

Here is another YT clip that includes commentary by both Gary Knight, and Bao Nguyen:

 

[Archiver]

Something like this would be so much harder today. Digital cameras, raw files, content ID and metadata make it almost impossible to attribute a photo to someone who didn't take it, assuming a proper investigation has taken place.