I've carried the physical-reference lesson into this FR5 faceplate review: quality has accepted and rejected pieces identified, but the supplier changed the holder position and lighting together before sending its improved images, so I cannot tell which change helped or whether that improvement survives normal reseating.
Ask for a fixed-presentation lighting comparison first, then repeated seating under the candidate arrangement, keeping the same identified accepted and rejected faceplates throughout
What improved in the new images, Naomi? Less moving glare, clearer real defects, or simply a quieter background? I'd want the supplier to name the actual result it is claiming before repeating the work.
Less glare is their claim, Anil; one confirmed edge defect is also less visible, which I've pointed out, and I've requested the separated comparisons Dinesh describes rather than a new light purchase
That is worth checking before the next lighting session. We once described a defect as harder to see when its useful edge had simply moved behind the lesson's cropped view. Very sophisticated discussion of a missing corner.
Jamie, it is still in view and not hidden by the holder; the full images show it, not just the supplier's crops, though it is faint under that arrangement
Who is defining the eventual acceptance of the image setup? The physical part decisions are clear now, but someone still needs to judge whether the camera comparison covers the relevant defects and presentation variation.
Quality and our vision reviewer own that decision together; they've added representative finishes and kept the difficult edge reject, with purchasing waiting for their conclusion rather than treating the supplier's image as approval
Please give the trainer their final example set and the reasons for using it. Otherwise the first dramatic stripe can remain in the lesson long after everyone technical has stopped believing its label.
Trainer is included now; first fixed-position comparison reduces glare while keeping the known edge defect visible, but repeat seating and the other finishes are still to be checked, so no lighting order yet
That is a useful result to keep with its limits. I'd be interested in the repeated-seating outcome, since the holder change was half the original uncertainty.