The same faceplate has a scratch in only one camera view

IsabelBell0648 · 21 Sept 2025, 18:48 UTC

Closed
IS
IsabelBell0648
I have a faceplate which looks clean to me on the bench, but one image from our proposed FR10 inspection setup has a bright diagonal line. The next view has no line. Both pictures are in the reject examples. I do not want to teach the students that a bright line automatically means a scratch. What should I ask quality to establish before we use these examples?

14 replies

AD
AdaAbbott0042
Replying to IsabelBell0648

Ask quality to examine that actual faceplate and identify the area in question. Your bench impression is useful, but the teaching example needs their acceptance decision too.

7 points
IS
IsabelBell0648
Replying to AdaAbbott0042

They have it now. I marked the image location, not the face itself. There is another faceplate with a visible groove, and the two arrived together in an unlabelled sleeve.

21 points
AD
AdaAbbott0042
Replying to IsabelBell0648

Good choice about the marking. Can you still tell which photographs belong to each piece?

19 points
OM
OmarBennett0752
Replying to IsabelBell0648

Give them separate storage and IDs before taking more pictures. I mean an ID that stays with each part between sessions, not just two different image filenames.

18 points
IS
IsabelBell0648
Replying to AdaAbbott0042

Yes, Ada. The corner hole appears in opposite places because one piece is a different version. The photographs can be sorted. I have asked quality to retain both parts separately as Omar suggests.

20 points
JO
JonasBrooks0807
Replying to IsabelBell0648

Different versions too? Do they even have the same finish requirement?

11 points
IS
IsabelBell0648
Replying to JonasBrooks0807

They share the cosmetic requirement on drawing revision F, but their hole pattern differs. Quality confirmed that before examining the faces. I had only checked the finish note myself.

20 points
CA
CarlaAbbott0053
Replying to IsabelBell0648

We had a polished sample that was called scratched because its reflection crossed the camera view. Repeating the photograph without changing any settings was a cheap way to show how much presentation mattered. Keep the genuine groove sample in the comparison as well; losing the bright line is not enough if you also lose the defect.

8 points
JO
JonasBrooks0807
Replying to IsabelBell0648

And use the intended version for tuning. The other can still teach the point.

16 points
IS
IsabelBell0648
Replying to JonasBrooks0807

Quality accepted the diagonal-line piece and rejected the grooved one. Carla, we can repeat the accepted piece in the nest before changing lights. Jonas, the accepted piece is our intended version; I will request a rejected example of that version too.

14 points
CA
CarlaAbbott0053
Replying to IsabelBell0648

Keep the full frames from that repeat. Close crops can hide the small seating difference that you are trying to explain to the students.

5 points
AD
AdaAbbott0042
Replying to IsabelBell0648

Who will replace the wrongly labelled copies in the lesson material? There may be more than the camera folder by now.

12 points
IS
IsabelBell0648
Replying to AdaAbbott0042

That is mine to fix. I found a copy in the handout as well. Thank you for asking, Ada; correcting the camera folder alone would have left a rather confusing lesson.

8 points
OM
OmarBennett0752
Replying to IsabelBell0648

Leave a note with the retained samples saying why each was accepted or rejected. The next tutor should not have to reconstruct this from your photographs.

18 points

Discussion closed

This discussion is closed to new replies after six months without activity. Last activity: .