Treasured moments like the signing of the register, the cutting of the cake and the newlyweds' first steps out the church were all missing. What film was taken was "wonky" and featured a lot of grass - because the camera had been left on the lawn for an important shot. The footage of the wedding mostly featured guests feet and backs, and many were taken too far away to make out faces.
YouTube link.
He even managed to include people who were not at the wedding. The unprofessional nature of Clayton Bennett's recording work emerged after the couple won a court battle against him demanding their money back.
Martin Shubrook, 34, a publisher, and his wife Heidi, 29, a primary school teacher, said they were concerned about his messy and "unsuitable clothing" and the fact he seemed to disappear for much of the day. But as he was the owner of Lasting Impressions video and photography services, based in Sunderland, they assumed he knew what he was doing. That was until they saw the results.
3 comments:
Because I'm an unromantic jerk, I just can't muster a lot of pity for people who are upset because of a screw-up at their wedding.
It is too bad if they don't get the money back, of course. On the other hand, the video could be turned into some kind of avant-garde film; maybe that's how they can recoup their losses.
And maybe they can get guests to send them the video clips they shot, and have those professionally edited together with some of the better clips from the "professional" video. I suspect all is not really lost.
Well, and who "assumes" their photographer knows what they are doing without asking for a portfolio? It's not like you can do a re-take if the day isn't photo'ed well (although I have known it to happen that some photos are studio done before or after the day itself)
Anybody can own a video and photography company. Doesn't make them competent.
Post a Comment