Our example images keep turning shiny patches into defects

I've found that some labels were assigned from the images themselves. The samples are still available, but those labels have no corresponding physical inspection results, making the reference circular.

@FelixBarnes0545 Mark those labels uncertain and have the samples inspected properly. Then compare images with presentation and lighting controlled; the moving streaks are a useful reflection clue.

A scratch's visibility can change with presentation too. Don't let 'moving streak' quietly become the rule for relabelling something acceptable.

@LinBell0618 You're right to qualify that. The streak behaviour motivates an imaging investigation; it doesn't replace physical classification under the agreed inspection procedure.

@LuisBrooks0869 Should uncertain images be treated as acceptable, or kept somewhere separate while their status is established?

@MinaBrown0946 Keep them explicitly undecided, with the sample link. Don't use them as confirmed examples of either class until the physical review settles them.

I've checked the image folders and found that exposure and presentation both changed between them. Their improved appearance can't be attributed to either change individually.

I had a separate inspection setup where the 'better lighting' folder used easier samples too. Its name implied a lighting conclusion that the comparison didn't support.

Which details did you retain with each image? I can record sample identity and settings, but I'd like a practical record people will actually maintain.

@FelixBarnes0545 On my setup we kept sample ID, exposure, lighting arrangement and presentation condition. Enough to explain a comparison without reconstructing the whole session from memory.

Those records can support the vision specialist's comparison of image conditions. Holding the representative sample set constant will make an acquisition change easier to assess.