p.giannakis
Pan Giannakis
No, it's not. The camera was left behind when they evacuated Saigon.
The Terror of War—Was Nick Ut's "Napalm Girl" photo taken with a Pentax camera?
- Thread starter Disappointed_Horse
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 189
- Views 14K
Duofold RF
Well-known
If both of their Pentax cameras were left behind. Yet Mr. Ut’s recollection—two Leicas and two Nikons—did not align with the negative profile, leaving far too much to the imagination.
Last edited:
p.giannakis
Pan Giannakis
True. But the AP report states that both Nick Ut and the photographer working for UPI (Hoang Van Dahh) submitted photos using pentax cameras. What is not confirmed is whether Ut had the Pentax that day. Footage shows him clearly carrying three cameras and a bag that is covered by his jacket.
Duofold RF
Well-known
AP can compare Mr. Ut’s other Pentax negative to this one under high power microscope , does the edge pattern match?
Endzeit
Newbie
Isn't that strange?
"However, comparing the corners and edges, the negatives from the camera output did not match the negative of the “Terror of War” photograph."
"However, comparing the corners and edges, the negatives from the camera output did not match the negative of the “Terror of War” photograph."
p.giannakis
Pan Giannakis
Unfortunately it is quite complicated.
They don't say that the picture was taken with a pentax. They say "it is very likely to have been taken with a pentax". Only two frames survived from that roll so it is very difficult to say for certain if this is a Pentax as some Nikons can resemble that pattern although not constantly.
AP insisted photographers used Nikons. The local office manager insisted to use Leicas. Pentax was cheap and plenty. Nikons and Leicas where taken back after the evacuation. The only pentax that survived is the spotmatic that belonged to Ut's late brother but it has not taken the picture.
There are pictures confirmed to have been taken with Pentax that belong to Ut. But no Pentax was carried out of the Saigon office (except Ut brother's).
So unless they find the correct camera and check for DNA or a video/photo evidence of one of them taking the picture, they will have to go along with probability. The report is very interesting because it says things that the filmmakers chose to exclude from th
e film.
Glenn2
Well-known
I’m surprised that they weren’t coding cameras by notching film gates. Supposedly in the early days this was common practice when photographers were using multiple cameras. If you noticed some problem on negatives it was easy to identify which camera was the culprit.
MarkWalberg
Established
I read the AP report. It says that Nguyen Thanh Nghe turned in film, never saw the negatives, and was given $20 and a print. He thinks that the print is the same as the famous picture, but the print has been destroyed. As far as I can tell from the AP report, that is the entire case that he can make for taking the famous picture. This is not a very strong argument, I think. It may well be that he took a very similar picture. Since his print is gone, it will never be possible to be sure about it. The AP report concludes that it is impossible to say for sure, but it seems clearly possible that the picture could have been taken by either Ut or Nghe. It is not my place to decide, of course, but the case to take credit from Ut seems weak to me.
MarkWalberg
Established
Also, the picture from the Getty collection showing Nghe in about the right spot is clearly not taken at the same time as the famous picture. The reason this is clear is that the Getty picture with Nghe also has the moving camera crew present. The moving picture crew is definitely not present at the time of the famous picture. Only pictures from a later time show the moving camera crew present when people have poured water on Kim Phuc and are trying to help her.
pgh
Member
There is sufficient reason to suspect the makers of the film and their motives. Unless proven otherwise, and it hasn't been, Nick made the image.
boojum
Ignoble Miscreant
All of this reminds me of one of my favorite Khayyam quatrains,
"When I was young I did eagerly frequent,
Both doctor and saint and heard great argument.
But evermore came out the same door,
Where in I went."
"When I was young I did eagerly frequent,
Both doctor and saint and heard great argument.
But evermore came out the same door,
Where in I went."
Last edited:
AusDLK
Famous Photographer
the digital recreation of the event in the film that was based on a number of other photographs taken at around the same time is compelling enough to convince me that Ut was not the photographer. not even close. World Press Photo agrees and have dis-credited him. what the Ut camp needs to do, but won't, is to disprove the conclusion of the recreation if they want to restore Ut's credit. in the fog of war, Ut and others may truly believe that he took the photograph but the film all but proves that he did not.
Out to Lunch
Veteran
MarkWalberg
Established
AusDLK said, "the digital recreation of the event in the film that was based on a number of other photographs taken at around the same time is compelling enough to convince me that Ut was not the photographer. not even close. "
The AP report makes it clear that the digital recreation used in the film did not include all the information available, and showed tings that can be proven are incorrect, such as placement of people in the grass when they can be seen to be on the road. Also, bushes present that are not really there. They also found in their own digital recreation that the outcome was highly dependent on minor changes of input. This makes the digital recreations suspect, I think.
The AP report makes it clear that the digital recreation used in the film did not include all the information available, and showed tings that can be proven are incorrect, such as placement of people in the grass when they can be seen to be on the road. Also, bushes present that are not really there. They also found in their own digital recreation that the outcome was highly dependent on minor changes of input. This makes the digital recreations suspect, I think.
p.giannakis
Pan Giannakis
Amen.
Also, reading the AP report, claiming that Robinson did not know Knight before 2023 (I think) and how they tried to tie up AP and David Burnett was really suspicious.
pgh
Member
The link I included attempts do to do just that. Yunghi says it better than I could. I do not know the truth, but I find the entire thing inconclusive enough to remove the credit in my own mind. Others may come to a different conclusion. It’s easy to make a powerful documentary film with an agenda, and at this point I believe that’s the best explanation of what has happened. The agenda preceded an objective inquiry. Of course, I may change my mind upon more information, but I’m not sure that will ever come.
It might be worth noting that, over the years, I have strongly disagreed with Yunghi in various ways - she even once blocked me from her facebook photo group for photojournalists for calling things she said in to question, for what I would contend were spurious reasons. Yet I think she has proven herself to be more guided by real truth than many I have known in industry, so credit where it is due.
AusDLK
Famous Photographer
I cannot imagine why someone would go to the trouble and particularly the expense of making a film just to smear someone who supposedly took a photograph 60 years ago.
what is there to be gained -- other than to right a wrong? documentary films DO NOT make money unless they win an Oscar or achieve considerable acclaim. this film will never reach that bar. so financial gain for the filmmakers can be safely ruled out.
so... the question remains, why make this film?
Freakscene
Obscure member
It was picked up by Netflix internationally. They made money on it.
pgh
Member
I can’t speak to the personal motives. I don’t know the people involved. I do feel confident in saying they have not proven anything to me, and I do feel it is likely that the money they made was probably not nothing. You have to put it in perspective - in the world of photojournalism what qualifies as “money” is often far less than it would for most people. It may also be that they made the film for the right reasons and simply are just wrong. For my own part, I just find it to be unconvincing and Yunghi’s argument worth noting.
Speaking generally, context matters as well. This film was made at a time when debunking all sorts of historical claims became a trend, and yes, a business of sorts. Some of those claims were right, some, I think, probably overstepped, or revised in ways that were too aggressive - or overcorrected to a degree that matched the bias of the original story. I consider this film certainly part of a zealous political moment - one that yielded no shortage of poor takes. Just my thoughts.
Photau
Newbie
If you are working as a photojournalist you take the shot. There is footage of the photographers giving water to the kids, and possibly journalists took her to the hospital.
It was a photo that helped to stop the war.
Thread viewers
Similar threads
- Article
- Article
