As pretty much everybody knows, weddings are sort of a big deal. Not only are they a pivotal moment in a couple's life together, it's also a day that they've probably been planning for years - if not decades - before actually making their way down the aisle and saying their "I do"s.
It goes without saying, then, that everything is expected to be perfect.
So, when Steph and Paul Unwin hired a photographer for their big day, they hoped that he would capture all of their precious moments and give them some snaps to remember for a lifetime. Unfortunately, he failed to do the former - but he certainly succeeded in the latter.
David Kilcourse, who advertised himself as a professional wedding photographer, has been accused of ruining the couple's day after he took 96 pictures of the two bridesmaids - many of which focused on their legs, cleavage, or behinds - but just 70 of the bride, and only 11 of the groom.
"He caused so much heartache," said Steph. "We have so many moments missing from our big day."
The couple had paid for a package deal from Kilcourse, which should have included shots of the bride getting ready, as well as pictures of the ceremony, meal and evening events. They were also promised a photo book, two prints, edited images and a CD.
However, when the so-called photographer handed over the finished products, the newlyweds were disappointed. There was no photo album as promised, and Kilcourse only handed over the CD after he was prompted. On the disc, the pictures all appeared to be unedited, and there weren't as many as the couple had expected.
They asked whether that was all he had taken and, according to Steph, "He turned around and said he took thousands of pictures. When we received them, he’d taken 1,636 images and 559 were out of focus. He called them ‘misfires’."
"There were none of the in-laws, one of my parents and almost 100 of the two bridesmaids," Steph explained. "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."
In her opinion, one or two "misfires" would have been understandable, but a whole album of shoddy pictures is just unacceptable.
"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," she said.
After complaining to Kilcourse about his services, Steph and Paul took the photographer to court and sued him for failing to deliver the services he advertised. Kilcourse failed to show up, and was subsequently ordered to pay £601 ($840) to the couple.
However, the photographer is now claiming that the lack of quality images was down to "bad weather".
"As a company, we did over 1,000 weddings and we only had, probably in all that time, 10 complaints of that severity," he said. "It’s a matter of opinion that we didn’t fulfill the package. Steph said that we didn’t take any outside shots of the wedding, when it was pouring it down all day.
Kilcourse's company has since folded, and he no longer acts as a wedding photographer under their name.