Why multiple detection methods were used
No single technique was reliable enough on its own, so the workflow combined OCR, feature matching, image-processing checks, and ML-assisted flagging.
A quality-control workflow for identifying collectible image crops that may need manual review.
Tech Stack
This project supported quality control for cropped collectible images by flagging records that may have orientation issues, failed crops, or other visual problems before final review.
Large batches of cropped collectible images needed to be reviewed for issues such as incorrect orientation, flipped images, failed crops, or unreadable results. Manual review alone could be slow and inconsistent, especially when working with high-volume image sets.
Create a workflow that could help prioritize manual review by surfacing images most likely to need attention.
Contributed to the design and development of an audit approach that combined image-processing techniques, OCR, feature matching, and machine-learning-assisted flagging to identify crops that may require review.
The audit workflow analyzed cropped images with multiple checks instead of relying on a single method. OCR helped detect readable text and possible orientation issues. Feature matching helped compare expected visual structure. Image-processing and machine-learning-assisted checks helped flag suspicious crops for manual review.
Architecture / Workflow
01
Image batch received
02
Cropped images scanned
03
OCR orientation check
04
Feature matching check
05
Image quality / ML-assisted flagging
06
Review queue generated
07
Manual review prioritized
08
Approved or fix-needed results
No single technique was reliable enough on its own, so the workflow combined OCR, feature matching, image-processing checks, and ML-assisted flagging.
The goal was to support quality control and prioritize human review, not fully replace judgment in uncertain cases.
The original work involved private/professional systems, so the portfolio uses recreated visuals and generalized descriptions without exposing proprietary data.
The tool supported the quality-control process by helping surface images most likely to contain crop, orientation, or visual-quality issues. This made review work easier to prioritize and helped improve consistency in the image audit workflow.
This project strengthened my understanding of image-processing workflows, quality-control automation, and how to combine multiple technical approaches to solve practical production problems.
Recreated Mockups
These visuals are recreated placeholders intended to communicate the workflow without exposing private systems or source images.
Recreated mockup
IMG-2048
OCR mismatch
IMG-2071
Crop warning
IMG-2105
Rotation needed
Recreated mockup
Fake collectible crop
Recreated mockup
01
Image batch received
02
Cropped images scanned
03
OCR orientation check
04
Feature matching check
05
Image quality / ML-assisted flagging
06
Review queue generated
07
Manual review prioritized
08
Approved or fix-needed results
Recreated mockup