dai_hunter

CHRIS: That's all well and good in Britain (and a fair bit of the rest of the world) but America would have a collective heart attack - all 350, or so, million of them at once - if they opened their morning paper to topless P-3 girls or near naked P-7 boys much less the other Sport / Star / Sun / ect. content, or the fact that some actually keep track of the "nipple count" (in photos that they publish) like the Sport.

 

America would choke on their corn flakes at the slightest hint of bare flesh even if it was surrounded by stories of murder, mayhem and violence in the streets or carnage on the highways. LOL

Some Florida, and other places as well, as many are following the Florida model statute, have anti-nudity / indecent exposure law written to include in the (public) nudity = indecent exposure charge definition, any exposure of: the M or F genitals; the pubic hair "area" (whatever that means - because medically any hair that develops at puberty is pubic hair - chest/back/shoulders - groin - axillary/armpit hair - facial hair - hair on arms and legs); any portion of the F breast below the upper margin of the areola; the anus; the anal cleft ([= ass crack] could apply to "low rider" jeans - and that technically and actually begins at the base of the spine and above the coccyx); and the nates (buttocks) and described as the area between two parallel lines one on the right and one on the left side of the body passing through, essentially, the dimple below the hip bone - that is where it is assumed, anatomically, that the buttocks join to the upper leg... THUS... the lady in the swimsuit picture would be in violation and COULD get busted for indecent exposure in those jurisdictions. They would arrest her if she were wearing anything even close to a thong or string type swimsuit.

 

Now consider this case:

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=oddlyEnoughNews&storyID=089999

 

Underwear in Public Not Indecent, Court Says

Fri Aug 27, 2004 10:14 AM ET

 

CAMBRIDGE, Mass. (Reuters) - Wearing underwear and nothing else in public does not constitute indecency, a Massachusetts court declared on Thursday as it tossed out charges against six animal rights protesters?.(rest on line)

 

Also in NY state a F may be topless in a public place (settled law); ditto for Ohio (settled law).

Jeff Conrad , sep 01, 2004; 07:19 a.m. said: A woman in a low-cut top bends over in a public place (as happened with the hostess in the restaurant where I was eating this evening... No, I didn't take her picture).

 

+++ What were you doing in Hooters anyway? Bad boy! ;-)

 

Should a "cleavage" such as the one I described above be a crime? In a public place, I tend to say no. If such an act is to be prohibited, however, the law should clearly so state.

 

+++ From the starting point that public nudity is generally an offence and so such a display may indeed be illegal, here is an interesting aside then: Shooting digital is one thing as the images can be viewed on the spot, BUT, what IF you are shooting film? Someone calls the police and complains that you took a prohibited photograph - do they arrest you if they were not present and did not see the "alleged" offence committed? Do they seize your camera and / or film without a warrant and at the same time without actually KNOWING (probable cause or even a reasonable suspicion) as to what it might contain?

 

Better yet, if the female in question admits that their breasts [or at least the prohibited parts thereof] were exposed to view does the cop arrest HER for indecent exposure and YOU for taking a picture of it? If so, you plead not guilty as you were doing your bit for society in taking a photo of HER crime in progress. LOL

Melissa Eiselein, aug 31, 2004; 10:47 p.m. said: I am most concerned about Dai's breasts and beer comment. I breast-fed my youngest son. Do I need to be concerned that he'll grow up to beer-buying alcoholic??? ;-)

 

Yup! As soon as the advertisers get to him. It is a peculiar thing about America I am afraid - breast feeding BAD! - beer drinking GOOD!

Don't get me wrong here, one of my best clients (for more than 5 years) is a nudist / naturist magazine where the espoused and sincerely held philosophy is that nudity is not necessarily bad or indecent. But we take great exception to exploitative, out of context, nudity to sell products.

Scott Aitken , aug 30, 2004; 02:12 a.m. said: Dai Hunter's advice regarding models in the UK sounds very different than what is typically practiced in the US?

 

You don?t know the half of it when it comes to model agencies - especially here in the UK. Pop over to this website and have a read of the typical (UK) client agreement:

 

http://www.models1.com/terms.asp?careerid=5

 

Special attention to this part: Copyright

"...The photographer and / or the client and anyone obtaining rights from or through the photographer / client is not entitled to use any images for any usage beyond that agreed or permitted under sections 2, 8, 16, 17 and 18 above. The photographer / client to this extent agree to restrict use and exploitation of the copyright. If the client is not the photographer, the client is to draw all these terms and conditions (1-23) to the attention of the photographer and obtain his agreement to them before the shoot commences...."

 

That?s why the UK agencies don?t want models signing releases for the photog or client. The model is expected, indeed required, to sign a comprehensive release in favour of the agency, NOT favouring the client or the photographer, and the agency then licenses and re-licenses uses in dribs and drabs as the client requires additional uses, territories, or an extension of time beyond the first 1 year term of use that the agency initially allows. Further up in the agreement you will also see that if you shoot 500 frames the agency is only allowing the use of a single, that?s right, one ONLY, image from the shoot as part of the booking fees paid.

 

As mentioned in my previous notes, the photographer gets the copyright but only on a "never to be exploited without paying the agency more money" basis. The legal effect of this client agreement is to become obligated to pay and pay, and pay again, for ANY uses for the life of the copyright. I simply won't work under those agreements.

So snapping a swelling, heaving, bosom is OK as long as you don't capture the nipples or areole or anything below that point?

 

I find it, as a European, rather bizarre that anyone thinks the upper half of the female breast is OK but the lower half is somehow taboo. What about side shots but without actually being able to see the nipples or areole? Have you seen what some women are wearing nowadays on the street that attempts, badly and totally inadequately I might add, to pass for a shirt?

 

And we all KNOW that God created female breasts, in the fashion that she did, for only one purpose - TO SELL BEER!

Things to do...(list)

1) Kill cat

2) Send camera for repair

 

Remember, in God's scheme of things cats will look down on you; dogs will look up to you; and pigs will treat you as an equal.

Problem is that the law evolves - here is an interesting read:

 

The Art Directors? Rights

In Commercial Photography

 

Just When Photographers Thought They Had Worked Out The "Work Made For Hire" Claims To Copyright In "Their" Work, An Even More Vexing Problem Arises!

 

by: James Lorin Silverberg, Esq.

Director of Litigation, The Intellectual Property Group PLLC

Copyright 2002 James Lorin Silverberg

 

On February 15, 2002, the Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals turned the Art Directors? relationship with the professional photographic community on its head. It is a decision leaving Art Directors questioning just how much in residual revenues from photographic shoots they re entitled to claim from the Photographers with whom they have worked during the last one hundred or so years; one leaving the professional photographic community with the unpleasant question of how many tens, hundreds, thousands, hundreds of thousands, or even millions of dollars they may owe to the Art Directors overseeing their shoots; a decision in which the Ninth Circuit ruled that Art Directors can qualify as co-authors of the photographs they art direct.... (balance of article and case analysis on line)

 

http://www.artlaws.com/rightsin.html

Gerald W. Litynski , aug 28, 2004; 12:54 p.m.

...and there is the 'greeting card company' in the U.S. that is in 'deep-pocket lawsuit' trouble over using a bride's image for a greeting card. A release was held by the photographer, but the bride-with-a-whiskey-bottle photo may not be considered to be in 'good' taste by a jury.

 

First of the Privacy Torts - Private Facts [shame , humiliation, ridicule] - cases are seldom won on that basis especially where the release is comprehensive. But they are, win or loose, expensive to defend.

The principle of joint authorship (sometimes called collaborative

works) and the copyright implications that they might bring,

specifically a possible claim of joint ownership of the copyright in

such works (especially in photography) by each and every participant

in the creative process, have become interesting topics to me mainly

because I have found some, but not much, case law on the subject. In

one California case an art director successfully sued a photographer,

after the fact, for a share of profits from the sale of photos, on

the basis of joint ownership of the image copyrights.

 

How a claim to joint authorship can come about, and did in that

California case, is if the individual "artistic" input of each

participant can not be separated from the whole of the work - such as

photographing a model with a special make-up scheme used (e.g. body

painting) where there is both skill and originality involved separate

from the skill and originality of the photographer him- or herself.

In the California case the art director argued, successfully, that he

researched and acquired the props used and arranged them on the set -

which was/were then photographed by the photographer and that

equalled a claim to joint authorship based on each of their

individual inputs to the whole (photograph).

 

Putting this question to a well known London law firm with a heavy

involvement in IP issues they couldn't answer it, especially as the

UK doesn't even have a work-for-hire doctrine that can be used in

defence of the photographer's copyrights. They were not even aware of

any specific prior UK case law on the issue, and indicated that I was

raising a question where an answer needed to be researched and

further examined from the photography business standpoint. In UK

copyright law the idea, and legal position, seems to be that if there

is creative input and the person is not an employee they still retain

THEIR copyright interest in THEIR particular creative input... what

ever that might be. If that creative input becomes part of a larger

work then they may have a claim to partial ownership of the copyright

in the finished whole work. Bizarrely, it seems, even models might be

able to claim such rights if not PROPERLY released in that respect.

The same arguement could be raised under US copyright law.

 

There is always a lot of discussion about "model" releases, here and

elsewhere, but how do you all handle releases of copyright interest

of such other diverse participants as might be those of the art

director; the hair and make-up artists; the clothes/fashion stylists;

set designers; ect. If you don't get a "release of interest" (from

everyone) and are shooting for commercial purposes, are you storing

up problems for the future? Have you ever even thought about this as

a business issue?

Comment for Sabrina... Just be glad she didn't (and any of your other models don't) read this before you shot her / them. This is from a UK model information / advice website run by a former model. I especially like the phrase "...alarmingly worded..." as if any contract, and that is what a release IS after all, can't be said to be "alarmingly worded" in the eyes of the uninitiated, especially if it is written specifically in legal terms. I know agents and agencies that expressly tell models NEVER to sign releases - at the same time they tell clients that they must NEVER discuss the fees, terms and conditions relating to what the agency is charging for the model's services, and even write that restriction into the client contract.

 

http://www.albamodel.info/scams.php

 

"Misleading Model Release Forms: NEVER sign a MODEL RELEASE FORM without reading it first and knowing how it affects you or your model child. In most cases if you have been for an assignment your agent deals with this matter. However, recent cases have shown that some unscrupulous agents have actually taken pictures of models of all ages, themselves, then got the model to sign a very alarmingly worded model release form and for no payment those pictures can be used by the agent in whatever publication they choose."

 

Most of the time getting releases is a tug-o-war between the competing parties - the photographer (graciously - and only by the good will of the agency according to them [NOT!]) is "allowed" to keep the copyright (but, of course, in law there is no way to FORCE the photographer to give it up) but the agency then wanting to control ALL uses, and they write that into their client contract too; and the agency, as well as the model, wanting to get paid every time any image comes anywhere near a lab or printer... Interestingly, most such agency contracts in the UK also require that, if the photographer is not the client, that the client is expected to enforce the agency contract on uses, or more to the point the lack of uses, against the interests of the photographer - even if the photographer never actually signs off on it.

 

I won't go near most agencies that have inflexible client contracts like that or shoot for clients (of mine) using their models under those contracts. I would rather do street castings any time; pay a fair price to the model in money or in-kind; get a fully released set of images; and keep control of both copyright and use rights. Just, I might add, as you have described.

There is an Irish Tourist Board office in central Dublin - make that an early stop in your travels and you can get all kinds of ideas on places to visit both locally and further afield.

 

One of my favourite shots last time I was there was a pic of the frontage of the "Nude Restaurant" in central Dublin (the food is "nude"... not the customers - LOL) with their big "NUDE" sign out front. You will find neat shots in the most unlikely places as well - I stopped to eat in an upstairs restaurant (common arrangement there located over retail shops) and, just by chance, lo-and-behold there... big as life... was a 7 foot copy of the Statue of Liberty right in the middle of the place. The staff were kind enough to allow pictures as well. Just ask.

 

Have a nice trip.

Just wait... sooner or later you will get the one in a million couple that wants to skip the wedding pix and have you shoot the XXX-rated honeymoon shots instead.

Interesting thought about Ilford and Kodak... it may perhaps be little known outside the local area (NW England) but Kodak has a plant just (literally) up the road from Ilford. Something tells me that one should keep an eye on what Kodak might do here, if Ilford goes up for sale.

 

Only time will tell if there is a possible, and at least partial, rescue of Ilford on the cards. There is, of course, in addition to the Ilford plant and property - a skilled local workforce; a customer base; any patents and IP that might exist at Ilford; the Ilford name itself; and other assets that Kodak might be interested in IF it could / would fit into their corporate structure and forweard planning.

I must say that I have some insight on this - I find it absolutely beyond belief that someone entering into any kind of formal, or even informal, arrangement to shoot photos, as you have done, that even in the remotest chance have commercial value has not found these things out in advance and does not have a written agreement setting out the details... It boggles the mind.

 

The lesson here is that there is "photography" on the one hand, and there is "photography as a business" on the other - and the former is not the same as the latter. If I sound unsympathetic it is because I am NOT sympathetic in the least when there have been no purposeful business arrangements made at all, and because for five minutes research on the topic, in this forum or elsewhere, you could have foreseen this problem well in advance.

No, in the UK "administration" is more like a US Chapter 11 and provides protection from creditors for a period of time, but the company can still operate. The administrators in this case are trying to sell Ilford (the silver division but not the digital division which is seperate) as a going company, albeit one in some trouble.

 

There are two further stages in British law, receivership and liquidation.

 

You could look at the 3 stages this way: administration = company still in business but having serious problems - the management continues to run it but the bean counters tell them how; receivership = the bean counters take over the management and may continue to run it or just close it, or parts of it - while they do this they are usually trying to sell off some assets against debts; liquidation is the last stage and is a full bankruptcy sale of all assets - the company ceases to exist.

Here is an interesting thought Brandon... find out where they had the copies made and go after THAT party... the printer/lab should have know better, especially with wedding pictures, and refused the work.

harvey platter , aug 22, 2004; 04:35 a.m.said: ...From what you're saying, here in Britain the customer would be quite within their rights if they asked you to take the pictures and paid you a fee for doing so. In that case, they would own the copyright....

 

 

Here in Britain they don't own s**t! There is NO work-for-hire doctrine in operation (unlike the US). Unless you are an EMPLOYEE and the work is created IN THE COURSE OF YOUR EMPLOYMENT - you own it. Full stop. End of story.

 

As James O' pointed out there is a potential hitch with s:85 BUT that only applies for work done for "private and domestic" purposes... and publishing in any form is not one of those. Even in s:85 areas, you own the copyright but can not freely use the images as you would be able to except for s:85 restrictions... BUT the client can't reproduce them (such as copying from proofs) either.

Ei Katsumata , aug 19, 2004; 05:57 a.m. said: I'm certainly no expert, but wouldn't assignment work command a day rate plus expenses (travel, mileage, film or digital fees, etc.)?

 

A lot of that depends on the publication and the difference between how they see an "assignment" and a "commission." With freelancers and assignments a typical pub may present, as Sabrina described, a list of material they are interested in. If you then select a subject to work on, and move forward to do it, you may be given "advances against billings" to complete it but that does not obligate them to use it, either, or make any further payments if they see the completed work as "below standard" or in any other way not of interest (it may no longer be, for example, "timely" by the time it is completed - even though it was of interest at the time it was assigned) You may not be out of pocket but you may not realise a payday out of it either.

 

Assignment work is a kind of half-way between doing work on spec where you pick the subject and do it at your up-front financial cost with the hope of recovering the cost + profit on sale; and commission work which is usually done on a specified budget to particular standards with a particular subject and a guaranteed payment up to the budgeted amount ALL of which are agreed to in advance.

 

You can look at these types of work and the costs / returns / risks this way:

 

On-Spec - all the costs are yours - they can only be recovered on sale. You have the flexibility to attempt to sell it, for the best price, anywhere in the market - or even sell it to more than one publisher in different marketa areas.

 

Assignment work - Perhaps, but not always, will attract at least payment of expenses to do the work - but any further payment (e.g. your wages) may depend on the work ultimately being sold / used. For freelancers, assignment work may still leave the option for other sales if the first buyer does not want it once it is finished. They may want reimbursement of pre-payments from any other sale if you do that but that is good business practice both ways.

 

[Formal] Commission work - Tends to be a more formal contractual arrangement set against a proposal for a particular project and a pre-determined cost estimate and a budget. It is more likely to be paid at some fixed rate/amount whether the work is ever used or not. Commissions are likely to include a day rate and costs for time, travel and materials + expenses and + profits based on the pre-arranged estimates. It could happen that you, as the contractor, might also run over budget and not be paid any extra as well [fixed price contracts] - and so any cost overruns actually may be set against (your) profits. [Formal] Commission work is not generally offered to freelancers as a mater of course, but it is also not unheard of either. It is generally the case that with commission work the whole of the use rights will transfer to the client - perhaps even the copyright in total [e.g. work for hire] - so there is little chance to realise any extra beyond the contracted payments. The advantage is that you get paid whether they use it or not. The disadvantage is that you may have no further rights interests in the work.

Sabrina... Well you have made a decision that I will not argue with. There are writers who can't or won't do the photography, and there are photographers who can't or won't do the writing - both of whom I respect in that regard. In a market like NY you can get away with it - in many smaller markets; with publications of modest circulation numbers; or even perhaps in certain photographic areas (such as the travel market) you probably couldn't. As for me I personally describe myself as a "photo-journalist" and do both because it works for me personally and as a business model.

Sounds like you are on the right track Sabrina... I wish you all the success possible with this.

 

As for your future, funny sometimes how things happen. Two weeks ago I called a regional (British) magazine editor to complain about their photo coverage of local area events, or, rather the lack of it (absolutely no Black, Asian or middle eastern faces could be seen in either the editorial material or the advertising - and that is really bizarre in this part, or any part, of England.) They called me back an hour later and asked for a CV / resume'. Turned out that they are, in fact, a Black owned business (even more bizarre in light of their photo content.) Frankly I think that they were flabbergasted that anyone noticed. Priceless!

 

A quick follow-up today seems to indicate that they are preparing to offer me some kind of work, though when I first contacted them, and even when I sent the CV, I expressly noted that my complaint had absolutely no connection with seeking work. As they are primarily a regional PR firm that has just moved into publishing a monthly magazine... it will be interesting to see what's on offer. As I am back in college again next month for a 1 year specialist course in Broadcast and New Media Journalism [i have only ever worked in print journalism] a little spare change would go a long way ;-) I am beyond my 60th birthday and still learning new skills - a good lesson there for you too. If they are offering to pay for a writing course, so much the better. Go for it. That is a skill that will always serve you in good stead with publishers.

 

Again, good luck to you.

freelance usually = spec work

 

You take the suggested topic(s) they suggest and run with it - research, arrangements to shoot, the lot. Keep all the contact names and numbers for the assignment editor and their assistants - you will find that when making arrangements for a site visit you may have to have your story confirmed by the publication. They may also issue you with assignment letters that you can use to prove your bona fides. In RARE instances they may issue you with an identification card (a company ID) but this is generally not the case with most publications vis a vis their freelance contributors.

 

As I both write and do the photography to support my writing I find it extremely easy to sell the thing as a "package," and in fact some months I can only sell the images and other months I sell more written material with only a few images. For news fillers I may actually not even do any images and only submit short (100-200 word) text pieces. It would benefit you greatly to learn something of the writing side, but on the other hand they may have some preferred writers that don't /can't do their own photos and so can hook you up as a team on particular stories.

 

As for pay. Magazines have many different ways to price out assignments, some ways more fair then others, but as a freelance, and assuming you are working on spec rather than fully commissioned jobs, it wouldn't surprise me if you were paid seperately for each of the writing and the photography elements. If you can only do the photos then obviously they (or you) have to pay someone else to do the written piece to go with them.

 

Think of freelance work as being piecework - the publication may give you the leads, and if they are being fair about things they will certainly tell you the stories that are of interest to them, and what they are NOT interested in, but they are also not generally commissioning work from you and thus would not necessarily expect to pay an assignment fee / day rate. More then likely you will see pay for the photography based on images actually used (sometimes, but not always, also adjusted for the printed size.) Images that are used in premium space (front cover; inside front cover; inside back cover; back cover; centerfold/gatefold; or across more then one page) should attract more money. Images that are used in the same issue in more than one place should also attract a premium. Images that are re-used in a second or subsequent issue should be priced with a second use discount. And, for the writing on a per word or per article basis. Anything used both in print and also on a website should be licensed separately for those uses but with overall prices negotiated for the combined uses.

 

If I were you, I would also be extremely clear with them IN WRITING about copyright and licensing matters, and in particular embargo periods and distribution territories, because a lot of material that you can generate as a freelance can often be resold in other markets or re-sold at a later time. What they will probably want, at the minimum, is first print rights (in their market - e.g. US; US+Canada; or North America; ect.) As mentioned they may also want other rights for web use or other uses or territories. The price they pay should reflect what they are buying in usage rights. Be careful also, EXTREMELY CAREFUL, about their lead times and payment terms - I know of some mags that buy in work for publication 8 - 12 months in advance and won't pay until published + 30, 60 or even 90 days... meanwhile the work is tied up and can't be sold elsewhere, and they will invariably try to hit you with "paid on publication (+ a delay period") terms rather than "paid on acceptance."

 

I tend to use a contract in some circumstances that agrees to but does NOT transfer ANY use rights until payment is made. If publication is made before payment then any rights are retrospective from the date of payment to the date of publication. That is not a usual type of contract you will see but it gives a writer or photographer leverage under copyright law if they use it without ultimately paying for the use.

 

There is much, much more you will need to know about doing this deal but the above should give you food for thought. It may be possible, depending on where you are located to find a mentor that has experience in the field to guide you along in dealing with publishers. Here is my last word, and a bit more food for thought: One very important overall consideration is factual - a lot of brand new start-up print publications last less than one year and a tremendous number less then 3 years. For that reason alone you need to keep your terms to your benefit and make sure you do not allow long delays on payments for completed / published work. I see in several newsletters I get (mainly for writers) long lists of complaints of non-payment that start out with crap terms; become "the check is in the mail" answers to enquiries; turning to "we are having cashflow problems"; and ultimately wondering where the publisher got off to (usually bankruptcy court) becasue they no longer have a working telephone or e-mail address.

 

Do it like this - on each and every CD image. Fiends are friends but business is business. The fastest way to loose your friends, or you business, is to mix the two<div></div>

Andrew,

 

I agree that we are not too far apart, here, on most of the technical issues. Those peculiarities of view, yours and mine, that remain are undoubtedly as a result of the perhaps slightly different end user perspectives that you and I may have.

 

You noted: "...And a LOT depends on the papers too! You can send less to matte papers than glossy. Your mileage may vary...." and that, in itself, is another whole discussion in file and colour management in repro. In fact, some of the imaging I do is actually on uncoated card of various weights exactly to take advantage of dot gain in the uncoated medium in rendering pseudo-continuous toning by allowing the ink to flow and saturate the fibres, sometimes to the point of actually over inking the media though my target is to stay just shy of that point. Objectively, for my purposes, that process produces a very "soft" image that would not appear so if the same image was sent to the offset printer (where it would visually appear as being somewhat more "crisp" - maybe a lot more)

 

I conclude many times, however, based on questions here and in other forums that digital photographers often just don't understand the process of physical printing sufficiently to understand the parameters that need to be assigned to their images. On the other hand, I come from commercial image publishing and graphics repro not based on ink-jet methods to the question of desktop printing that is, and so then tend to start with the rule-of-thumb values that I better understand and know how to manipulate to advantage.

 

Like wet printing in a darkroom... jet, laser and commercial printing becomes a speciality skill (maybe describing the "art" of it?) all it's own over and above the actual image capture. The user begins, and slowly over time hopefully improves, in the ability to see and visualise an image on screen and judge the character that it will have when translated to the printed page in specific printing environments. In wet darkrooms there were photographers that could make beautiful images but couldn't print them for s**t - OTOH there were printers who could take a s**t photo and make gorgeous prints; the same thing has happened in the digital age.

No, I certainly did not mean to imply pushing up propane pressure with air. In fact the cylinders were 100% purged with CO2 in advance of the propane. What I meant to say, perhaps not clearly enough, is that the same "woofer" device can be used either / or for a flame effect or for debris, with obviously different means of operation. Just as you do.

 

I have also seen the use of camp stove gas packs (which are butane) as you describe. They don't do well in very cold weather, however, so in the UK it is more likely to see a liquid fuel device (typically 1 gallon, in a glass pickle jar) with an electric squibb over a small black powder charge to initiate it. Some of the suppliers here sell these ready to go.

 

Best project, and perhaps the most spectacular, that I ever worked on was a "cratering experiment" in ca 1969 at Fort Peck Reservoir, Montana - 210 TONS of nitro methane detonated to create a controlled shaped crater. Not a special effect but an actual engineering job for the US Dept of Energy and US Army Corps of Engineers. WOW! did that one ever go BOOM! Used to have a series of 8 B&W shots of that but, alas, long lost after all these years and many moves.

 

If I were a younger guy I might have taken up your career a lot earlier.