Chemistry is regarded -primarily by chemists -as the central science. Advancements in chemical knowledge have propelled developments in biology, physics, engineering, and medicine that now define our modern era. But chemistry has a significant image problem, with many public fears and misconceptions regarding the prevalence and uses of chemicals, and the roles of chemists in society. In my science communication practice, I endeavour to highlight and explain the everyday roles of chemistry. This may be through descriptions of the chemistry of commonplace objects, or through dramatic chemical reactions on fast timescales. Fireworks provide a unique opportunity for both approaches, as they are integral to many cultural celebrations and childhood experiences, but few people understand or appreciate the fundamental chemical principles at play in each pyrotechnic. Herein I have outlined my science communication practice, engagement strategies, and interrogate the challenges of measuring the outcomes of science engagement. entitled "Public Attitudes to Chemistry," commissioned by the UK's Royal Society of Chemistry, found very poor recognition of chemists and chemistry as a profession and discipline of study respectively (TNS BMRB, 2015). The top 5 responses to the question "When I talk about a chemist what comes to your mind?" were: pharmacies/pharmacists; medication/medicines; prescriptions; drugs/ tablets/pills; and shop/chemist's shop, while the responses to the question "When I talk about chemistry what comes to your mind?" were: school/teachers; science; chemicals/ele¬ ments; drugs/tablets/pills/medication. These responses highlight the significant disconnect in the recognition of the chemical sciences as an essential influence on our modern lives, with clean water, synthetic materials, fuels, batteries, pharmaceuticals, and more rely¬ ing directly on research, development, and manufacture by chemists.