[/QUOTE]I haven't read any of the links provided in this thread yet, but I vividly remember reading an interview with Eddie a year or so ago. He did not like his Pulitzer Prize photo and had never hung it on the wall. Most of all, he hated how it was taken out of context and how it became an icon of the Anti-War movement. Eddie was there and had witnessed the situation develop. I forget exactly what had happened, but Eddie always said the shooting was fully justified. Idealogues on the other side made into an example of a corrupt and brutal regime executing an "innocent freedom fighter".

Eddie had not gone looking for such a situation with the thought capturing a Pulitzer Prize winner. In contrast, the fellow who took the shot of the little girl running down the road on fire, did go purposely looking for a situation. What galls me the wrong way is that he did not drop his camera and do something to help the girl. Instead, he let her run by, on fire, knowing he has a Prize-candidate shot. There is film-footage taken at the incident showing this, and the photographer has stated his motivation in several interviews.[/QUOTE]


In an interview Adams said that the South Vietnamese officer had just had his family killed by that Viet Cong fighter earlier in the day. He also said that the photograph unfairly painted an image around the officer who ended up fleeing to America and dying here. While this image taken out of context is powerful, it is also powerful even in the context of the situation at hand.
As for the photograph taken of the napalmed girl mentioned... is it not just as important to know when to put the camera down as it is to know when to pick it up?? Have we as image makers thrown our humanity away just to take a picture in those situations?
Ray