Couple Stages Wedding Again for Reshoot After Amateur Photographer Used Stock Imagery in Her Portfolio

Couple Stages Wedding Again for Reshoot After Amateur Photographer Used Stock Imagery in Her Portfolio

A couple has had to reshoot their wedding day pictures after it turned out their photographer was an amateur who took “diabolical” photos. The couple, who paid £100 per hour, complained the photos had “blurry backgrounds” and claimed some of the images on the photographer’s site were actually stock imagery.

Lin and Brendan Lavery, a couple of 16 years and residents of Devon, UK, were distraught to receive the images from their big day. Groom Lavery recalls:

Most of the pictures were out of focus. They are diabolical. We couldn’t believe that they were that bad. She took down her Facebook page and blocked us on her profile. We later found out she was an amateur. I wouldn’t have given £200 to an amateur.

They have since had to spend an additional £330 in order to take new pictures recreating the big day, including suit rental and the fees of another photographer. They initially consulted other photographers to see if anything was salvageable through Photoshop, but decided staging the wedding pictures was their best option.

What’s worse, a bit of investigating found the photographer in question had posted stock imagery to her social media pages, in what was likely intended to mislead potential customers. The photographer has since removed her Facebook page and blocked the couple.

Lead image by Emma Bauso from Pexels

Log in or register to post comments


Previous comments
Steven Magner's picture

Anybody that is willing to give you money for a job in which you don’t actually have a portfolio of your working proving you are capable is a fool.

I would have never considered a photographer to reproduce shots my wife wanted on our wedding day without a proven track record. Is it possible you could do the work, sure. But that’s just playing with fire.

This is like when I walk by the $10 barbershops and see the early 90s poster with 30 different headshots of hairstyles. I never assume the barber is capable of those styles, I want to see his ability to cut the hair I want.

I like your barbershop example. So do you give a barber a chance? Do you ask a barber if he can do particular style? Do you wait for somebody else to get into barber's chair so you can evaluate his skills? Actually, unlike pro photographers barber is licensed by state and is real professional. Some people will pay $400 to celebrity stylist, but I prefer to take a chance with $10 barber.

Jacques Cornell's picture

You know what I mean. It's fraud. As for your claims that "just about anybody" can produce professional wedding photography, you're delusional. I know, because I've heard a hundred stories from regular folks about terrible results from "wedding photographers". This article represents just how bad the situation has been made by unprepared wannabes and fraudsters.

First of all calling somebody fraud without evidence is a slander. This is why British tabloid that published this story took it down from the web for legal reasons. You don't know for sure that any of the stock photos were used, if stock photos used there taken by photographer and sold to stock company or any other information about advertisement besides tabloid article. You can call barber that doesn't have a license a fraud, you can call doctor who doesn't have MD a fraud, you can call professional photographer who doesn't have degree in photography from accredited university or works for accredited media company a wedding photographer. Bar to enter wedding photography is so low that it practically laying on a ground. By your own admission you didn't shoot your first wedding solo until you worked at least 20 weddings as an assistant or second shooter. That translates to 20 days of training. Name me any legitimate professional job that you can master in 20 days. Show me a picture by professional wedding photographer that can not be replicated by another photographer. But I don't want to be rude to you or any other business person who works hard to make a living. Please read this article and have a good laugh

Jacques Cornell's picture

A "photographer" who offers paid services on a website that, by implication, represents his work and who uses unattributed photographs made by other people on that site to create in the viewer the false impression that those photographs were made by him is perpetrating fraud on prospective clients.
The End.

does anyone know who the photographer is because if not she could probably fraud more people.

I don’t know what’s the market in UK is like, but £200 sounds too good to be true. I charge close to 10 times that and I consider myself average price in Vancouver.

Jacques Cornell's picture

This is irrelevant to the question of fraud. An electrician who works cheap can still be sued for burning down your house.