Groom Ignored By Wedding Photographer Who Preferred To Shoot Bridesmaids’ Boobs and Bums.
Photos of a wedding have emerged that has led newlyweds, Steph and Paul Unwin, to take the wedding photographer to court. The controversy was, that out of all the photos by the so-called professional they hired, only 11 shots were of the groom; the remainder were close-up shots of bums and cleavage totalling 96 photos of the Bridesmaids. The newlywed couple were upset to find that nowhere were their in-laws to be found in the shots and to make matters worse, a third of the photos were out-of-focus.
The photographer, David Kilcourse, has apparently received other complaints about his work which Steph Unwin learned after she had received a full refund after suing the photographer. “He caused so much heartache. We have so many moments missing from our big day,” she said. “I’ll do anything to stop him doing this to anyone else. When we got some of the pictures, I said to him ‘is this all of them? because I’m really disappointed.’”
Out of the 1636 total amount of images taken 559 were out-of-focus, Kilcourse claiming that they were “misfires”. Kilcourse managed to get over 100 shots that paid attention to the Bridesmaids yet only one photo of the Bride’s parents and none at all of the in-laws.
“He took pictures of one of my bridesmaid’s breasts, some of her bum. There were more pictures of just the bridesmaids than anything else. I’m sure he was doing that on purpose,’ Steph Unwin said. “I know that photography is interpreted differently by different people but when he takes three pictures of someone’s bum, that’s not an accident.”
Not getting what you paid for
Steph and Paul, 30, from Bollington, Cheshire, hired Kilcourse to work at their June 2015 wedding and bought a package which included the full day and all its various stages – including the bride getting ready, ceremony, meal and night time. It also contained a photo book, two prints, edited images and a CD. By the time it was too late Steph noticed that most of the package from the event was missing and to make matters worse the photographer didn’t turn up on the day until well after they were all ready.
“We received no photo album. He just sent the pictures via disk after I complained,” says Steph. “He claimed the pictures he’d sent us were edited but they weren’t. My husband wore a grey suit but on the pictures, it looked blue. A lot of the pictures were angled so they wouldn’t look right in a photo frame. The pictures he showed us before we booked him were really nice – thankfully we had a videographer.”
Court rules in favour of couple
After failing to turn up to the court case the newlywed couple won a settlement of £601 to reimburse them for the catastrophe. Despite still advertising his services, Steph has learned of other brides that have felt let down by the quality of Kilcourse’s work. However, Kilcourse has claimed and maintains Steph and Paul’s wedding pictures were ruined by bad weather.
”The company has folded since then. As far as I’m concerned it’s all done and dusted,” Kilcourse has said. “As a company we did over 1,000 weddings and we only had, probably in all that time, 10 complaints of that severity. It’s a matter of opinion that we didn’t fulfil the package. Steph said that we didn’t take any outside shots of the wedding, when it was pouring it down all day. According to my terms and conditions we say that we can’t control the weather. They said I’d taken inappropriate pictures which was disproved. I got so much hassle through weddings that I just stopped doing it. The reason I didn’t turn up to court was that it was in Nottingham, it would have cost me a fortune. The court ruled in her favour.”
This blog post originally featured on www.photographybymatthewjames.com