"Anyway, I find it hilarious that I did see the photos of your model shot "bare-breasted", a woman holding her own bosoms! But not scary, scarring living history photos. Obviously, flickr knows where to draw the line in the sand..."
A Brit friend found that he couldn't see his own pictures. Most were of English chapels with exhaustive notes...
"would have loved more shots of the geteld like tent thingy"
I think I have more shots of getalds in http://www.flickr.com/photos/folo/sets/72057594125869235/
, and there are some in http://www.flickr.com/groups/regia_anglorum_in_north_america/
"Also, the shade-fly, just a square of fabric and a few poles and rope, do you know if there is firm evidence of it being that simple?"
It is a style that I first ran into in 18th-century reenacting, and there is sufficient provenance for it in that period. I started looking further back, and I found similar structures in landsknecht camps, then my wife came up with a picture that looked remarkably similar in the Utrecht psalter. Firm? Well, the pictures are certainly open to interpretation, but the interpretations are viable and useful and are likely enough for me. I don't expect to find any archaeological evidence of their existence; they are too transitory. The poles were apparently tree limbs, and the roofs were of various substances. They probably weren't moved, just reconstructed as needed. But nothing about them are illogical, and they are generally accepted in more strenuous living history. But whether they are truly accurate, I think, probably depens on your definition of accuracy. I do believe that their simplicity is a factor in favor of them being historicl accurate; I've often seen that our forefathers didn't do more work than they had to!