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

How was copyright law at the time? The rights to the work probably didn’t belong to the photographers paid to be there so at least financially didn’t matter to either photographer. I can understand if someone wanted to give credit to the right person for the sake of getting history correct so many years later.
 
There is so much open to dispute. The unbiased observer has to separate the possible from the probable.

Academically I was trained to sift through vast amounts of information to attempt to arrive at the truth. To do this I was reading two to three books a day in addition to course work. Occam's Razor was a rule to be guided by and the separation of possible and probable. Often our conclusion is a guess, but it is best if it is a well informed guess.

There will always be the "I seem to remembers" and the "Didn't this happen?" but we must avoid weak information and stick with what can be best substantiated. Otherwise we are out wandering in the fields of idle conjecture and opinion. Sergeant Friday said it best, "The facts, Ma'am, just the facts."
 
Sonnar Brian said:
If they had the original negative under investigation- would be convincing. Too many variables for a negative to go to a print, enlarger lens used, cropping, etc.
The original negative would show the mask of the camera used, and exact size of the image would give an indication of focal length used. I filed down a negative carrier "back in the day" to print more of the image from my 24/2.8 used on a Nikon F2.
Click to expand...
The article shows the original negative as well as the next shot on that roll. Only those 2 frames from the roll still exist and the article also shows mask analysis from a Leica M2, Nikon F and Pentax Spotmatic. Their Conclusion is that the shot was "very likely" made with the Pentax and extremely unlikely to have been made with an M2 (contrary to Ut's recollection ) - with no conclusive evidence either way.

The article also mentions that Ut's brother, Huynh Thanh My (also a photojournalist) died in combat several months before, and that Ut had inherited two of his brother's Pentax cameras.
 
ddutchison2 said:
The article shows the original negative as well as the next shot on that roll. Only those 2 frames from the roll still exist and the article also shows mask analysis from a Leica M2, Nikon F and Pentax Spotmatic. Their Conclusion is that the shot was "very likely" made with the Pentax and extremely unlikely to have been made with an M2 (contrary to Ut's recollection ) - with no conclusive evidence either way.

The article also mentions that Ut's brother, Huynh Thanh My (also a photojournalist) died in combat several months before, and that Ut had inherited two of his brother's Pentax cameras.
Click to expand...
I searched for every occurrence of "Negative" in the article. What was NOT stated is "This is the original negative of the award winning photograph".

"The following photos of the children are AP’s. They are adjoining frames from a single film negative strip."
It was difficult to know if this meant the original negative of the award winning photo, or was it taken at about the same time and angle, or was it a copy of the original negative.

"The AP archive holds 84 negatives from at least 7 rolls of film credited to Nick Ut and shot that day around Trang Bang. Many of his negatives were not preserved, lost in the fall of Saigon or destroyed."


"Negative analysis
At the beginning of its investigation, AP examined the 84 negatives from the day kept in its physical photo archive.
Using visual characteristics of the edges, corners and artifacts within the frames, they were grouped together showing they came from a total of four cameras.
Only four frames by AP of Kim Phuc with her family were identified, and they were shot using two different cameras. The remaining photos from that day were shot using two other cameras."

​

 
Sonnar Brian said:
I searched for every occurrence of "Negative" in the article. What was NOT stated is "This is the original negative of the award winning photograph".

"The following photos of the children are AP’s. They are adjoining frames from a single film negative strip."
It was difficult to know if this meant the original negative of the award winning photo, or was it taken at about the same time and angle, or was it a copy of the original negative.

"The AP archive holds 84 negatives from at least 7 rolls of film credited to Nick Ut and shot that day around Trang Bang. Many of his negatives were not preserved, lost in the fall of Saigon or destroyed."


"Negative analysis
At the beginning of its investigation, AP examined the 84 negatives from the day kept in its physical photo archive.
Using visual characteristics of the edges, corners and artifacts within the frames, they were grouped together showing they came from a total of four cameras.
Only four frames by AP of Kim Phuc with her family were identified, and they were shot using two different cameras. The remaining photos from that day were shot using two other cameras."

​

Click to expand...
I didn't read the article too closely, but it seems the AP kept the actual negative of the award winning print, plus the neg adjacent, which they say is their policy. So it sounds like they had the original negative. From an examination of the negative, they say, but not sure how they determined, it was likely from a Pentax, possibly (if I read the report correctly) a Nikon, but probably not a Leica. Ut claims he was shooting Leicas and Nikons that day, but he did own his deceased brother's Pentax. The real bombshell is the claim of the Saigon photo editor who alleges the negative was purposely mis-credited.

This isn't just some guy alone, crying foul, there's evidence and independent witnesses supporting his position, but there's also evidence and independent witnesses going in the other direction too, supporting the conclusion that Ut actually took the picture.
 
Last edited:
@steveyork - Given that is the original negative: I see a couple of very distinctive flaws in the frame mask of the camera, note two at the top of the frame. Whether Pentax, Nikon, or Leica- those should match up against other negatives. I also note some flare that crept under the mask, left side towards the top of the frame.

I would be measuring the exact size of the image on the negative. Wide-Angle lenses tended to cast a bigger image, as it gets projected farther under the mask. Would be an interesting metric to have. My Nikkor 24/2.8 certainly did this. The image cast from a 35mm focal length lens vs a 50mm focal length lens may be different as well.
 
I tend to believe everyone and both sides have points. Does anyone else recall the short lived controversy regarding this Pulitzer Prize winning photo https://www.pulitzer.org/winners/slava-veder

Slava Veder won the award in 1974 for the photo of POW Col. Robert Stirm returning from captivity and being greeted by his family. Being a newbie to the news business around this time, I was fascinated to discover a near identical photo was shot by someone else and it was published the same day as Veder's in another publication. I forget the name of the other photographer because, well that's what happens over time. And given the fact that anything that happens anywhere at any time is likely to have a number of representatives of various news media present, the fog can be pretty intense.

In that fog of things happening during the action in Vietnam, it would have been easy for Ut and another photographer to have made nearly identical photos. It would also have been possible for the photographers involved to have somewhat florid memories. Forgetting what camera was used, forgetting who was standing where, forgetting who brought the film in for processing, etc., I can see it all happening and to have been compounded by the passage of time. AP seems to have done a creditable job in investigating the claims. And, at this point in time, there's nothing here indicating the reputation of Nick Ut should be tarnished, IMO.
 
I was just reflecting on this stream and the subject and the war in all its horror - it was really ugly - and the impact it has had on the folks involved in it, soldiers and civilians. And then it occurred to me that the photographers must have been terribly damaged by covering the war as "the fly on the wall", the mute observer who must go back and tell what has happened. I understand that many had opinions about the war. But as a photographer you are forced to witness but to not participate. Unlike the medic who can take up an M-16 and fight, the photographer is in a special role, neutrality accepted by all, pretty much, non-combatant and just eyes and ears.

Is there a burden of guilt after fire fights? The feeling that maybe I could have saved that fellow's life? Should I have intervened? There has to be an enormous emotional turmoil within the war photographer. And no doubt they shed that as difficultly as the actual combatants. To have covered that war or any war has to be traumatic. And you do not get medals, honors or parades for your work. Maybe you get published. You probably survive, pretty scarred. Their emotions are not our emotions. The "fog of war" seems to affect everybody in it.
 
Dogman said:
I tend to believe everyone and both sides have points.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Late January 2025, Nick Ut announced his intention of filing a defamation lawsuit against the makers of The Stringer. Supporters subsequently raised some $40,000 through GoFundMe. Since then, I have not been able to confirm if Nick Ut actually filed the suit and I am curious whether he'll do so in the wake of the AP's updated report.
 
I've read the report and technical stuff. Does anyone else feel underwhelmed by the way in which this photo was taken? Sure, those photographers put themselves in danger by being in the area at all. And that photo had a huge effect on world opinion. But the casual way in which the journalists seem to have been hanging around that bridge area on the off chance that something might happen, and prioritising gathering copy from the suffering of young kids when it did happen, that really depresses me. I appreciate war photographers do face this dilemma, but still, there were a whole lot of them. Only one needed to take a photo. I could not have just photographed the kids as they ran past screaming.
 
I was in Vietnam about 10 months 1972. On a DE. Had people from one of the National news networks reporting from our ship. That’s how my parents found out where I was at because no mail out or in at first.

One of the group of items I bought was Nikon equipment. I still have slides, color and b&w negatives I made while in S.E. Asia. R&R in Hong Kong. Had some work done on our ship in Sasebo Japan. While there I figured out a way to get to Nagasaki where I photographed the city.

And the camera and lenses, I still use them. And everything still works like it’s supposed to Do you think that smartphones of today will last that long?

Info on the photograph made by Nick Ut:

aboutphotography.blog

Story Behind The The Terror of War: Nick Ut’s "Napalm Girl" (1972) — about photography

What’s up photography fans! As you know I usually talk here about all kinds of street photography and photojournalism. The photo I would like to talk about today is a photo that changed the war in Vietnam, a very important photo in the history of photography. Let’s check out the The Terror of War by
aboutphotography.blog aboutphotography.blog

Info on napalm:
en.wikipedia.org

Napalm - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

I saw Napalm being used. Terrible.
 
Last edited:
Jonathan R said:
I've read the report and technical stuff. Does anyone else feel underwhelmed by the way in which this photo was taken? Sure, those photographers put themselves in danger by being in the area at all. And that photo had a huge effect on world opinion. But the casual way in which the journalists seem to have been hanging around that bridge area on the off chance that something might happen, and prioritising gathering copy from the suffering of young kids when it did happen, that really depresses me. I appreciate war photographers do face this dilemma, but still, there were a whole lot of them. Only one needed to take a photo. I could not have just photographed the kids as they ran past screaming.
Click to expand...
What stuns me is how many of them showed up over there with little or absolutely no experience in photography and ultimately became photojournalists -- Tim Page, Dana Stone, a few others. These people had to be shown how load film into camera -- literally. They admit it. I guess "being there" was the only or major requirement of the job. I'm sure it's different now.
 
steveyork said:
What stuns me is how many of them showed up over there with little or absolutely no experience in photography and ultimately became photojournalists -- Tim Page, Dana Stone, a few others. These people had to be shown how load film into camera -- literally. They admit it. I guess "being there" was the only or major requirement of the job. I'm sure it's different now.
Click to expand...
In Phillip Knightely's excellent history of war journalism (The First Victim), he describes Vietnam as the first (and only) basically uncensored account of a war. He states that arrival in country with a letter from any recognized American news organization - no matter how small - stating that you were their reporter on scene would grant you full press credentials, UPI and AP would even lend you a camera. A note from the editor of your town's weekly paper saying you were their S/E Asian "bureau chief" was all that was needed to gain full press credentials. This also seems to be born out in Michael Herr's accounts in Dispatches
 
ddutchison2 said:
In Phillip Knightely's excellent history of war journalism (The First Victim), he describes Vietnam as the first (and only) basically uncensored account of a war.
Click to expand...
In a post-smartphone world, everyone gets to be a citizen journalist. It's now possible to get real-time updates on events around the world. But it also means that photos and videos will be regularly misattributed, misconstrued or straight-up doctored to be something they are not. While this isn't new, it's increasingly apparent when looking at Instagram, YouTube and Twitter. One example is of this is a recent flood somewhere in the world - footage was uploaded to a popular Instagram account, and many commenters noted that it was old footage from another flood elsewhere in the world. Leica seem to be accounting for this by introducing digital credentials into their raw files so any alterations from the original will be trackable.

@Bill Clark Thank you for your service, from someone in Australia.

@Jonathan R In the AP investigation, they mention that journalists/cameramen poured water on the Vietnamese girl's burns, so there were things they must have felt compelled to do.

@boojum I cannot imagine what the war photojournalists had to witness and bear. They deserve as much praise as those who fought and rendered aid.
 
This thread on Nick Ut and the famous photo is a microcosm of the war itself. Varying viewpoints and perspectives and truths. The photo itself is beautiful in its horror. We are forced to regard a facet of the war, the facet of kids being killed and maimed, physically and emotionally. It was a sobering moment. It still is.
 
The internal mask of various brands of camera and models are generally slightly different in dimension. Aspect ratio can be slightly different too. If the two original cameras are still around measuring the masks and the neg dimensions would probably reveal the truth. If not, take a Leica or Nikon of that era and model and measure precisely the masks and the dimensions of the neg. Do the same with the Pentax model supposedly used and compare.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom