You know, I'm pretty used to people who know NOTHING about HTML/CSS getting their panties in a wad when I post the truth... But "not garnering facts" -- EXCUSE ME?
You want facts? FINE. Your site uses color combinations illegible to a large swath of the population... on top of a disastrously broken layout. Honestly, I'd applaud the attempt at using dynamic fonts on the page, if the layout was designed to scale with them; but what you have is the typical "what do you mean %/em or even PT automatically enlarges for large font users"...
Here is EXACTLY what I saw, without using any extra zoom features on my system apart from the OS setting.
This is caused by my using the accessibility "120 dpi" windows setting, and your using %/em fonts in a layout designed for a fixed HEIGHT. That 'auto enlargement' is the entire REASON for using %/em fonts -- but the layout you put them into isn't designed to handle it.
You want FACTS, read the WCAG about color contrasts! Are you HONESTLY telling me you find that large red text in your content column LEGIBLE? The black text beneath it SAME? Eyesore at best, illegible at worst. Red on black only has a 33% contrast difference, red on a sum of that gray ends up LESS than that.
Honestly, I'm SHOCKED you're listed in google at all - since the keyword stuffing gibberish below the picture break in that same area should be getting you slapped down for... well, keyword stuffing... though at least it's not content cloaked, likely WHY you've not set off the radar.
From an accessibility standpoint your heading orders are GIBBERISH. Is "Weather resistant" a subsection of "wedding photography testimonial"? Is "Wedding photography prices" a subsection of "weather resistant"?!? Of course not, so why are you saying they are with lower-order headings? (H3,H4,H5)
the page comes in at 1.3 MEGABYTES -- meaning most likely a lot of people don't even bother waiting for it to finish loading; on a page that to be frank even WITH the fancy pics likely doesn't need to exceed 256k 'as is'.
Those ARE facts... that I 'garnered' -- and if you're going to put your head in the sand like an ostrich about it -- lah-lah-lah like the Vancome Lady... Oh well. Stay in 1997.