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

[Bill Clark]

Info I found:

“Nick Ut's iconic "Napalm Girl" photo, taken during the Vietnam War, was likely taken with a Pentax camera, although he initially believed it was taken with his Leica M2. While Ut always maintained that he used his Leica M2, a recent investigation by The AP suggests the photo was more likely taken with a Pentax camera. He also used a Pentax camera belonging to his brother, according to Pentax & Ricoh Rumors.
Like most Vietnam War photographers, Ut would take a range of cameras with him to cover a story, including Leica and Nikon gear. In addition, he used a Pentax camera belonging to his brother, also an Associated Press photographer killed on assignment in Vietnam.”
—————
I was in Vietnam in 1972 on the ship U.S.S. Badger DE-1071. On our way over to Vietnam we stopped in Subic Bay Philippines where I bought Nikon equipment. I decided on the Nikkormat as Nikon had removable prism available which I was not interested in. The Nikkormat suited me just fine. I was in Haiphong harbor when it was mined, operated along the DMZ, and made it to DaNang and Quang Tri a few times. Made a lot of photographs, color and black and white.
Nobody died on our ship. Once a ship operating with us the gun mount blew up killing four people. I was a firefighter.

My Nikkormat worked every time. I still have it and use it every once in a while. I have all the negatives and slides I made back then.

Tax free pay plus other incentives back then. Several guys bought motor cycles and were able to store them on ship.

 

[phojsu]

What you say is true. I was operating under the impression that someone had heard what someone else had said and was putting it forward as truth. Nevertheless I remain skeptical. You have been through moot court. You know that several people can see the same thing differently. My understanding is that eyewitness testimony is shaky. If there were a number of people with the same testimony or, better, a photo or two, I could feel comfortable with it.

My training in school required me to review reams and reams of "evidence" and accounts of "evidence." Variance was common, indeed the rule. There are some things indisputable. That Viet Cong shot by the South Vietnamese general during Tet. There is no denying that. There could be dispute about the still camera and the movie camera used at the scene.

One thing that has me confused is how AP can say that film was shot in a specific camera. I have a feeling this will unravel until we have something similar to Rashoman. And if it is just coming out now why did it take so long? The situation raises a lot of questions for me. It does seem a lot like Rashomon.

It was not uncommon for AP shooters who frequently covered events in the same venue, where all film went to a single photo editor, to have the shutters of their cameas notched (a small notch filed in the edge of the open shutter set to bulb, creating a unique signature for a specific camera). There would be no confusion as to who shot an image from any roll of film.
Imagine 6 0r 8 photogs at the Super Bowl sending film via a runner to the darkroom. Twin checks would often be used but a notched shutter was indisputable.

 

[boojum]

It was not uncommon for AP shooters who frequently covered events in the same venue, where all film went to a single photo editor, to have the shutters of their cameas notched (a small notch filed in the edge of the open shutter set to bulb, creating a unique signature for a specific camera). There would be no confusion as to who shot an image from any roll of film.
Imagine 6 0r 8 photogs at the Super Bowl sending film via a runner to the darkroom. Twin checks would often be used but a notched shutter was indisputable.

I did not know about this prudent effort by photographers to establish ownership of mages. It could put an end to this difference of opinion.

 

[kodachrome25]

The investigation is interesting. I still don't follow the idea that they can somehow magically tell what camera exposed the negative. Something is missing in the article if there is a proper explanation for that. I see nothing on those negs that say "pentax" vs "nikon" personally.

Referring back to the first posts in this thread, the AP Report Update-6 May 2025 analysis states it's 'likely the famous photo was taken using a Pentax camera' and unlikely by a Leica M2. The referred to documentary film asserts that the photo in question was made by the 'stringer' using a Pentax camera

I was curious to discover whether consistent differences could identify a particular camera brand, so I assembled four negative strips taken from a Pentax SV, Leica M2, Nikon F and Nikon F2. Sandwiched them together between glass and scanned
In AP's testing of four Leica and one Pentax, they show a composite image of the corner profiles of the different camera outputs. The Pentax corners appeared to be somewhat more curved than the Leica examples. However in my test samples this does not seem to be the case

Measuring the physical frame gate dimensions of different camera models AP concludes that Leica images are generally marginally wider than images from a Nikon or Pentax. The famous image was closer in width to Nikon or Pentax framegates. In my test samples the Leica and Pentax frame widths are virtually the same, with the Nikon samples noticeably narrower. Extreme wide angle lenses may render slightly larger image areas but unlikely to be used by press photographers of that era

My guess is that the production engineering standards of the 1960's and 70's produced discrepancies within the same brand and type of camera body. Ultimately this form of analysis is flawed and without the actual cameras used during that incident, the claim that one camera or other was used is untenable

One last point, the images of the famous negative show multiple scratches, some very deep. Shows how carelessly AP's archive may have been handled

 

[boojum]

Referring back to the first posts in this thread, the AP Report Update-6 May 2025 analysis states it's 'likely the famous photo was taken using a Pentax camera' and unlikely by a Leica M2. The referred to documentary film asserts that the photo in question was made by the 'stringer' using a Pentax camera

I was curious to discover whether consistent differences could identify a particular camera brand, so I assembled four negative strips taken from a Pentax SV, Leica M2, Nikon F and Nikon F2. Sandwiched them together between glass and scanned
In AP's testing of four Leica and one Pentax, they show a composite image of the corner profiles of the different camera outputs. The Pentax corners appeared to be somewhat more curved than the Leica examples. However in my test samples this does not seem to be the case

Measuring the physical frame gate dimensions of different camera models AP concludes that Leica images are generally marginally wider than images from a Nikon or Pentax. The famous image was closer in width to Nikon or Pentax framegates. In my test samples the Leica and Pentax frame widths are virtually the same, with the Nikon samples noticeably narrower. Extreme wide angle lenses may render slightly larger image areas but unlikely to be used by press photographers of that era

My guess is that the production engineering standards of the 1960's and 70's produced discrepancies within the same brand and type of camera body. Ultimately this form of analysis is flawed and without the actual cameras used during that incident, the claim that one camera or other was used is untenable

One last point, the images of the famous negative show multiple scratches, some very deep. Shows how carelessly AP's archive may have been handledView attachment 4868907

Damn! This is the kind of stuff that keeps me reading this board. Thank you for your work.

I think at the end-up we will have to go with "the generally accepted" that it was Ut and let it go at that. Conspiracies are charming but rarely credible.

 

[TimFloyd]

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

I have read all the posts on Capa by AD Coleman's Photocritic International at least twice, and I've read Charles Herrick's book 3 times. There are serious flaws in many of their conclusions. Yes, they are obviously correct about the emulsion melt, but they got so many things wrong. I've written about it in a blog: Robert Capa Focus Hocus-Pocus – START HERE — Aid and Comfort to the Enemy
I promise you'll find it interesting reading.

 

[Mike Piv]

The fog of war is thick