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

So it's made mainstream news now, this will be interesting. The AP analysis seemed to be very thorough, and the suspension seems hasty and less informed. Politics still run strong decades after that photo was taken.
 
Archiver said:
So it's made mainstream news now, this will be interesting. The AP analysis seemed to be very thorough, and the suspension seems hasty and less informed. Politics still run strong decades after that photo was taken.
Click to expand...

I think it will take another fifty years before the US can fully come to grips with the war in Viet Nam. But, catch this about Capa. He has been accused of faking the famous soldier just shot in the Spanish Civil War and according to the woman who made the video in the link, the human side was more important to Capa than the military side, whatever that means. I think it means posed photos are OK. So the proto-combat photographer, Robert Capa, may have been faking photos. And on it goes. One nice thing about digital is that there is a digital signature along with the date-time stamp. So the camera is known. Who held it? That may be another story unless the digital signatures are logged on a daily basis.

I think that one purpose of the combat photography is that non-combatants back home can see just what the combatants are doing, and it is ugly, and though it is folly we hope that there is a lesson learned.

For those who did not see service, your basic MOS (Military Occupational Specialty) is 111, rifleman. That's your number one job. You may get further training but you are a rifleman first. Your job is to kill and not be killed. It is really simple. I was company clerk in a trucking outfit. I was issued an M14 and qualified with it every year, 111. Gratefully I was in France. ;o) And I was released from active duty just as Viet Nam was heating up. Yup, luck just follows me around everywhere.

The YT video:

​
 
Last edited:
Eh, I've heard that and think that one's bulk manure too.

During my time in the Army I was a 19E (M60 tanker) on active, 19D (mechanized scout) & 11B (infantry rifleman) as a Cavalry Scout and last as a 96B (Intelligence Analyst). At the height of the cold war, it was all about being ready to help Ivan die for the Motherland rather than me dying for Ronnie RayGun while enjoying the best beer & schnitzel that the small Bavarian town I was stationed in had to offer. By the time Gulf One came around, I got sent to an Army school in Arizona rather than to the sandbox and was out of the uniform before Gulf Two. I also had my own luck though my knees, back and ears might beg to differ 😉
 
The question before us now is what is the purpose of combat photography and what qualifies as combat photography? Whoever did it, however they did it, Viet Nam was a masterpiece of coverage. And I do not think we will see that coverage again for a number of reasons.

I felt guilty about my plum assignment for years until a USCG W4 told me, "You went where they sent you and did what you were told." That was my job, go and do. That's what I did. Lucky me.
 
If I were to wake up in December 1981 in my bed in Eau Claire, WI but with the knowledge that I have now, I would still enlist. But I would have gone for a 84B Still Photographic Specialist, four years for the bonus & mandatory deployment to Europe. After training but before deployment I'd take that bonus and visit the nearest big used camera shop and put together as complete a Nikon S kit as I could for my personal shooting (uncle would have plenty of SLRs for work 😉 )

It would be interesting to see where the rest of things might fall out after that 🤣
 
Well, we've hijacked this thread. The Robert Capa vid is interesting and, again, raises the question of what a combat photographer is. Nick Ut's case is has been questioned but in my estimation is still sound. Capa, that soldier "being shot" has been questioned for a long time. As a question, if you have seen soldiers shot and killed but not "caught the shot" is it dishonest or unethical to re-enact what has happened?

AP, AFP, BBC, CBC and maybe some other respected photo groups can formulate guidelines but what then? It seems it will come down to the person holding the camera. And let's see how Nick Ut's case unfolds.
 
boojum said:
He has been accused of faking the famous soldier just shot in the Spanish Civil War and according to the woman who made the video in the link, the human side was more important to Capa than the military side, whatever that means. I think it means posed photos are OK. So the proto-combat photographer, Robert Capa, may have been faking photos.
Click to expand...

Capa was a massive liar. Even his name was a lie - a persona created for mythos. The whole story about his D-Day photos has also been proven to be a lie; it didn't really hold up for a second if you stopped and thought about it (the darkroom technician closed the film drying cabinet - like you would normally do! - and that somehow made it hot enough to melt the emulsion? But instead of dripping downwards, it dripped sideways, conveniently matching the frame placement you get from using a regular 35mm cassette with a Contax? Sure). So it wouldn't surprise me one bit to find out the Spanish Civil War photo was a "fake", too.

There's a really good breakdown of the D-Day story on Petapixel here: Debunking the Myths of Robert Capa on D-Day

The in-depth posts analysing each part of this, bit-by-bit - including studying the few photos Capa actually took and other photos taken on the day to prove he was possibly only on the beach for as little as 15 minutes! - can be found here: Robert Capa on D-Day « Photocritic International

boojum said:
One nice thing about digital is that there is a digital signature along with the date-time stamp. So the camera is known. Who held it? That may be another story unless the digital signatures are logged on a daily basis.
Click to expand...

Metadata is incredibly easy to change and fake, too. You can do it with a basic terminal application called ExifTool - I use it all the time for film scans, especially ones I've digitised with a digital camera instead of a scanner to make the resulting files appear to have been shot with a Yashica TLR or Leica III. That's why Leica have started using a secure chipset to sign each file with encrypted data to prove the photo's metadata hasn't been tampered with. As far as I know, the M11-P and SL3-S are the only digital cameras in the world which do such a thing.
 
Coldkennels said:
Capa was a massive liar. Even his name was a lie - a persona created for mythos. The whole story about his D-Day photos has also been proven to be a lie; it didn't really hold up for a second if you stopped and thought about it (the darkroom technician closed the film drying cabinet - like you would normally do! - and that somehow made it hot enough to melt the emulsion? But instead of dripping downwards, it dripped sideways, conveniently matching the frame placement you get from using a regular 35mm cassette with a Contax? Sure). So it wouldn't surprise me one bit to find out the Spanish Civil War photo was a "fake", too.

There's a really good breakdown of the D-Day story on Petapixel here: Debunking the Myths of Robert Capa on D-Day

The in-depth posts analysing each part of this, bit-by-bit - including studying the few photos Capa actually took and other photos taken on the day to prove he was possibly only on the beach for as little as 15 minutes! - can be found here: Robert Capa on D-Day « Photocritic International



Metadata is incredibly easy to change and fake, too. You can do it with a basic terminal application called ExifTool - I use it all the time for film scans, especially ones I've digitised with a digital camera instead of a scanner to make the resulting files appear to have been shot with a Yashica TLR or Leica III. That's why Leica have started using a secure chipset to sign each file with encrypted data to prove the photo's metadata hasn't been tampered with. As far as I know, the M11-P and SL3-S are the only digital cameras in the world which do such a thing.
Click to expand...

The conundrum is that Capa's shots are moving documents of war, real or otherwise. So using writers as an analogy, is a fictional account of the horrors of war any less than a real account? I know this treads dangerously close to the end justifying the means and a series of works by "The Ministry of Information." But this Nick Ut thing has ignited a storm and re-ignited old ones. It is a time of painful self-examination. I am drawn back to George Fox's comment on dishonesty in the marketplace, "Let their 'yeas' be 'yeas' and their 'nays' be 'nays.'" This will be hashed out here and in the press over Ut, Capa and others. And while Capa's name was fake I think of it as a true nomme de guerre.
 
@boojum @Coldkennels @wlewisiii Speaking of Capa, remember the infamous unauthorized Leica M Monochrom ad that was commissioned by Leica Brazil, and disavowed by the mothership in Wetzlar?



There was a lot of controversy about this ad: it made it look as if Robert Capa's D Day photos were taken with a Leica. Not long after Leica Brazil posted this on YouTube, Leica Camera's official YouTube channel commented, demanding they take it down!

Not ones to rest on their laurels, Leica Brazil commissioned another controversial commercial the same major agency Saatchi and Saatchi, making it look as if the Tiananmen Square Tank Man photo was taken with a Leica:



It's a superb commercial akin to a short film, and I wish I had made this. Goddamn, it's so good. But it attempts to hijack history again by implying Tank Man was shot with a Leica.

Of course, Chinese netizens took offence to the depiction of 80s China and Tiananmen Square, so they bombarded Leica with complaints. Leica later disavowed this commercial, too.

www.exibartstreet.com

Leica Pays Tribute to Photographers with the Promo "Leica - The Hunt" - Exibart Street

The Brazilian Ad agency F/Nazca Saatchi & Saatchi has just released a new short film called "Leica - The Hunt".
www.exibartstreet.com www.exibartstreet.com

Ironically, as these commercials caused such controversy, they have been removed from the official channels and mostly lost. Only lower resolution versions remain online, and few can recall the entire story about them. Makes me wonder what Leica Brazil will pull next!
 
Last edited:
David Kennerly on fb:

My comments on World Press Photo "suspending" Nick Ut's photo credit for his picture of Kim Phuc after being napalmed in Trang Bang. World Press Photo "suspended" Nick Ut's photo credit for his Pulitzer Prize winning "Terror of War" also known as “Napalm Girl.” Here’s Nick with Gary Knight (L) in Hanoi, March 21, 2023 and James Nachtwey. Knight at that very moment was secretly working on a documentary alleging that Nick Ut didn't take his famous photo. The three spent a week together teaching a workshop, and Knight didn't disclose his subterfuge to Nick.

“Following a nearly year-long investigation, the AP has concluded that there is not the definitive evidence required by AP’s standards to change the credit of the 53-year-old photograph (by Nick Ut).” . . . The Associated Press, May 6, 2025

“We have officially suspended the attribution of The Terror of War to Nick Út. This suspension will remain in place unless further evidence can clearly confirm or refute the original authorship.” . . . World Press Photo, May 16, 2025

Guilty until proven innocent. That’s the way the World Press Photo Foundation (WPP) rolls. By arrogantly “suspending” Nick Ut’s credit from his 1973, “The Terror of War,” also known as the “Napalm Girl” photograph, they are trying to exile Nick to photographic purgatory. The WPP can’t say for sure that he did or didn’t take it, but that’s not stopping them from playing Photo God by trying to destroy Nick’s good name with their twisted calculus. Even in football you need clear evidence to overrule a call on the field. That evidence isn’t there, particularly 50 years after the fact. And what right does the WPP have to “suspend” or take away the credit of a photo submitted to them for an award that is owned and published world-wide by the Associated Press? Zero, it’s a circus and they are the clowns.

Why did the World Press Photo Foundation do this? One reason is their fealty to the film’s producing entity The VII Foundation and its ruler Gary Knight who produced and stars in “The Stringer.” The film is a fable based on the allegations of a disgruntled former AP photo editor in the Saigon bureau who had a big ax to grind and is jealous of Nick’s fame. The VII and World Press foundations are joined at the hip on this one. WPP Executive Director Joumana El Zein Khoury in her punitive proclamation said, “. . . we conducted our assessment collegially, transparently . . . ” No they didn’t. Among things not mentioned is the fact that they have a very cozy relationship with Knight who has chaired some of their contests, and that they were shown the film ahead of others to lend it credibility and to promote the work.

In the WPP rush to judgement that started at the beginning of the year, Ms. Khoury sent Nick Ut a threatening email on January 14, 2025, in which she gave him a week to respond to allegations made by Knight that he didn’t take the “Napalm Girl” photo. She said, “We need to hear back from you before the 21st of January 2025. If we don't hear from you before then, we will then proceed with our decisions.” A week? Give me a break. We’re talking about something that happened in the fog of war over fifty years ago. A week!

Flash forward to the WPP announcement. They drank Knight's Kool-Aid right from the get-go. The WPP conducted an “investigation,” and came up with a perverted and bizarre decision, one that I suspect they had irrevocably made months earlier. It is also clear to me that Gary Knight and his collaborators had their narrative nailed down saying that Nick didn't take the photo and they were sticking with it no matter what. They clearly didn't put anything into their "documentary" that didn't serve that goal. Dave Burnett is one of those inconvenient witnesses. Fox Butterfield, then of the The New York Times is another who was out there on the road and thought Nick did what he said he did. When Fox was initially contacted by Knight’s wife who is a producer, he gave her his version and never heard back. It contradicted their conclusion. Arthur Lord of NBC who was also there, and now departed, said Nick was next to his cameraman on the scene. Gary Knight and his co-conspirator’s modus operandi might as well be, "I hate when facts get in the way of a good story."

AP’s lengthy and professional inquiry into the authorship of the photo keeps it with Nick Ut. To further confuse the issue, WPP interjected the possibility of another photographer into the tale who was on the road that day. They said he was also in position to make the shot. Are there any others out there that they might want to add to the mix? Not me, I was in Saigon. Maybe it was someone else like their "stringer”who never sold or published anything in his life other than the famous picture that he claims to have taken. Add to that, “The AP spoke to eight eyewitnesses who were on the road when the photo was shot and received a statement from a ninth, the Napalm Girl herself, Kim Phuc. Those interviewed include Ut, who spoke to the investigators for five hours straight, and a relative of Kim Phuc’s who was also running from the attack. Other than Nghe, none questioned Ut’s authorship of the photo, and that guy only after decades had passed. Nothing to see here.

In her statement WPP's Ms Khoury said, “The documentary takes a stand that Nguyễn Thành Nghệ is the author. Associated Press has concluded that since there is no definitive proof that Nick Út did not take the image, the attribution of authorship to him should stand. At World Press Photo, however, we took a different path. Guided by our judging procedures we conclude that the level of doubt is too significant to maintain the existing attribution. At the same time, lacking conclusive evidence pointing definitively to another photographer, we cannot reassign authorship either.” What a shameful cop out.

Couple that with what the VII Gaslighting Foundation puts out there, “The film doesn’t lay blame on Mr. Ut; it examines the role of Western Media outlets and the unequal relationships to ‘local’ staff and stringers during that period.” That colonial allegation is totally disingenuous. In other words he’s not to blame but has been flat-out lying for 50 years. Nick’s Saigon photo boss Horst Faas who allegedly gave credit to him for someone else’s picture, the darkroom guy who developed the film, and the AP Saigon bureau chief Richard Pyle aren’t around to defend him because they’re all, conveniently for Knight and unfortunately for Nick, dead. So let’s just blame it on the Western Media, that cabal of white guys who mistreated the ‘locals.” What BS. I was bureau chief for United Press International Pictures in Saigon for more than a year and at the time Nick took his famous photo. Our stringers came from everywhere, France, Japan, Germany, America, Australia, England, and of course Vietnam. They were all paid and treated the same. The producers are trying to slither away from the fact that this a direct hit on Nick Ut. Why not just admit it instead of trying to assume some racist explanation? Ironically, it’s a pair of white guys, Gary Knight and Carl Robinson, who are the ones slamming the youngest and only Vietnamese photographer to ever win the Pulitzer Prize.

One of the sleaziest elements of this affair is the behavior of Mr. Truth Seeker himself, Gary Knight, the perpetrator and leading man in “The Stringer” saga. He along with Nick Ut and James Nachtwey participated in a photo workshop in Hanoi together in March of 2023 even as Knight was secretly plotting the documentary that could conceivably destroy Nick’s reputation. He said nothing to him about his subversion and later tried to get Nick to do an interview that he wisely declined. Can’t get more cynical or cold-blooded than that.

In keeping with the malevolent nature of the WPP decision to suspend Nick Ut’s credit from the photo he took, I am hereby suspending any mention of the two first place prizes I won in their contest in 1975 for my work in Cambodia. I will remove any indication of the awards from my bio and will only restore those citations when WPP admits they overreached and apologize to Nick for their malfeasance. Compared to what has happened to Nick Ut it is a small gesture, but I stand with him now and forever.

To conclude, here are AP’s own words summing up Nick Ut’s photo credit:

“No one investigating the creation of a photograph more than a half century later can have any true certainty about what happened. To overrule a photo credit given at the time would require clear evidence the decision made by those at the scene was incorrect. Such certainty is simply not possible to have here.”

Amen.
 
War, controversy. Controversy about the war itself. Controversy about what and how much to report. How honest should war coverage be? Ken Burns' series on PBS was watched by many, more as an essay than reportage. We had seen the reportage and that was so controversial. The networks had their slant. Even our paper of record, The New York Times was a little slow and slanted in their coverage. I saw little of the TV but got the daily radio broadcast from WBAI in NYC, radical radio. The news started at 6:00 and finished when the station ran out of news. It was one of the very few with an AFP feed and someone to translate the French into English. WBAI scooped the NYT by a day or two often.

But the news was ugly no matter who told it. The government was plainly lying and not too good at it, the nation was split on support for the Vietnamese. Some here supported the South, others the North, I knew families that came to blows. Colleges with returning GI's were split. It was a very, very bad time on a number of levels.

So should we get fair and honest reporting? Do we really want to see the broken burned bodies between the commercials for cars and toothpaste? So even when the war coverage and photo journalism is great it is awful. On that note, Netflix has a new series, Turning Point: The Vietnam War. It's sort of like an auto accident. We are repulsed by it but cannot look away. The footage is not new, none of it. But it is a reminder of what happens when you turn loose a bunch of dedicated folks with cameras alongside a bunch of dedicated folks with rifles. Check it out.
 
Last edited:
boojum said:
So should we get fair and honest reporting? Do we really want to see the broken burned bodies between the commercials for cars and toothpaste? So even when the war coverage and photo journalism is great it is awful. On that note, Netflix has a new series, Turning Point: The Vietnam War. It's sort of like an auto accident. We are repulsed by it but cannot look away. The footage is not new, none of it. But it is a reminder of what happens when you turn loose a bunch of dedicated folks with cameras alongside a bunch of dedicated folks with rifles. Check it out.
Click to expand...
I've started to watch this series, but late at night when it should be during the day when I can concentrate and not fall asleep! All the Turning Point docs are excellent so far.
 
boojum said:
The conundrum is that Capa's shots are moving documents of war, real or otherwise. So using writers as an analogy, is a fictional account of the horrors of war any less than a real account? I know this treads dangerously close to the end justifying the means and a series of works by "The Ministry of Information." But this Nick Ut thing has ignited a storm and re-ignited old ones. It is a time of painful self-examination. I am drawn back to George Fox's comment on dishonesty in the marketplace, "Let their 'yeas' be 'yeas' and their 'nays' be 'nays.'" This will be hashed out here and in the press over Ut, Capa and others. And while Capa's name was fake I think of it as a true nomme de guerre.
Click to expand...
A bit off topic but as Capa already has a mention I feel it is justified.

I have just this very minute come back from the unveiling of a plaque at the French parlement building (Assemblée nationale) in honour of the resistance and the liberation of that building in 1944. Imagine my surprise when I saw the seventh name on the plaque. Sorry for the reflections it was new and shiny.

IMG_0642.jpeg
 
The first casualty of war is the truth. In the case of US conflicts, I don’t think the subterfuge ended with Vietnam. There was an incident in the 2000s Iraq war where the US military actively targeted journalists, including killing at least one. And then tried covering it up by classifying the event. Then Bradley Manning leaked the document, along with others, and was prosecuted for it.

It reminds me of the film Wag the Dog. The press can be a convenient tool for propagandists to exploit, but when they are no longer useful, or getting too close to the truth, watch out.
 
JoeV said:
The first casualty of war is the truth. In the case of US conflicts, I don’t think the subterfuge ended with Vietnam. There was an incident in the 2000s Iraq war where the US military actively targeted journalists, including killing at least one. And then tried covering it up by classifying the event. Then Bradley Manning leaked the document, along with others, and was prosecuted for it.

It reminds me of the film Wag the Dog. The press can be a convenient tool for propagandists to exploit, but when they are no longer useful, or getting too close to the truth, watch out.
Click to expand...

The press is best when it is a pain in the ass. It is their job to carp, complain and criticize. If they make folks in power squirm, good. I used to get WBAI in NYC. It is part of the Pacific Group and radical radio. They had the Mideast hour once a week, 30 minutes Israel, 30 minutes Arab states. They had to alternate who went first in the show. The NYC cops complained they were being treated unfairly by the station. So WBAI told them they could have their own radio show. But sometimes the cops did not get the tapes to the station for air time. BAI's coverage of Vietnam and other stuff of the period, like the Democratic convention in Chicago, was startling. They had a live broadcast from a phone booth where their reporter was being tear-gassed. We need more nitty-gritty news coverage like this and less chewing gum for the eyes to sell soap and vacations in Florida. What we get for news is Kabuki theater.

I'll have to start listening to BAI again just to get a different viewpoint. It is radical and listener sponsored. They have fund drives and raffles. They raffle some crazy stuff, across the board crazy. The one that got me as most out of the mainstream back in the late 60's was a pair of gay hamsters they were raffling, for a good cause.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom