Identify informative viewpoints
A top view, side view, and close view may expose different evidence about the same object. Describe which surfaces or features must be visible for the task. Avoid specifying angles more precisely than the source can reliably report. Reference examples often communicate useful framing requirements better than unsupported estimates of camera pose in an existing archive.
Separate distance from resolution
A high-resolution photograph can still show the target as a small part of the frame. Specify the target size or contextual framing needed after delivery transformations. Include whether full objects, cropped details, and partial objects are useful. These choices affect both sourcing feasibility and whether existing annotations can remain valid after export.
Track repeated specimens
Several viewpoints of one physical item provide useful coverage but do not necessarily represent several independent items. Keep specimen or session relationships where available. Decide whether related views belong together during evaluation splitting. Report both the number of photographed instances and the number of images so the buyer can distinguish viewpoint density from subject diversity. Separate camera orientation from object orientation in metadata when both matter; a rotated file does not necessarily represent a newly observed object view.
Pilot practical ambiguities
Review images with tilted horizons, mirrored exports, portrait orientation, and unconventional framing. Establish whether rotation metadata is preserved or normalized and make annotation coordinates follow the delivered pixels. Ask Fiund to review representative framing requirements during project scoping. The objective is a reviewable coverage plan, with source limitations documented before anyone commits to volume.
Review checklist
- Show examples of required framing.
- Specify target size after delivery transformations.
- Track related views of the same specimen.
- Check orientation handling against annotations.