Photos can't effectively be used to determine if all the criteria of Table 6.1 is being satisfied.  

Believe it or not, the plant manager where I worked in S.C., who was my supervisor, actually emailed a CWI some pictures of some base plate undercut that I had let go, which met code.  A gage was not used when the pictures were taken.  The CWI looked at the pictures and immediately said "I would reject it", and I was written up for letting it go.  Needless to say, I was extremely upset.  During my written warning, I said, I don't care how good the CWI thinks he is.  There is absolutely no way that he can determine the depth or the frequency of the undercut just by looking at pictures.  I'd also said... get him down here and let him show me that this undercut should be rejected.  The plant manager said "I'm not going to get him down here because I'm not going to take your word over a CWI".  To make a long story short, that's how I ended up in Atlanta.  It was obvious that he wanted me out of there.  Most likely it was because I was trying to make sure that everything that went out the door met job specs and code requirements, while he would continuously override me and let things go that didn't.  The write up for undercut was my final warning and it was the last straw.  I quit my job and I put my trust in God's hands.  Two months later I was offered the QC manager position at Stein Steel in Atlanta.

They took a lot away from my family and I, but they didn't get my integrity.  I don't compromise that for anything or anybody.

Well ssbn727 that's why I said; "3rd Party" in quotations - - the term is used loosely.  The bottom line is that people just don't understand the inspection sections of the code(s), be it AWS, IBC, RBC, etc.  They also get lost in what are considered secondary structures (not "Occupied" buildings") I think even many on the Engineering/Architect side are confused they know the design portion, but not the quality assurance side, so they just list every code in existence on their general notes pages and say something like; "All activities shall be in compliance with the following codes: a, b, c, d, e, f, g........" and so on so that they are covered.

The problem here is that this is leaving Owners, Generals, and Subs to try to decipher this stuff like; 3rd Party, Continuous or Periodic Inspections, Special Inspections, etc.  On a good day they call their Client, who then calls their Client, who then calls theirs, and maybe at some point someone actually consults a Professional, but too often the Sub calls the General and rather than say; "I don't know" they just guess or tell the Sub to just take care of it and to hire an Inspector and because no one knows any different those reports all make it to someone who writes a final summary that says; "To the best of my knowledge the work was done in compliance with the contract drawings and specification." ....or "I kind of take responsibility."  ...which then apparently leads to final acceptance.

I have two primary issues; first is that I've got (many of us do) a lot of time and money invested in Certifications/Credentials and besides the aforementioned there are many instances where inspections are just flat being skipped or waived when they shouldn't be and I can't figure out how it gets all the way through the Building Officials.  Second is that we're not talking about little trinkets here.  In the Telecom industry it could be towers hundreds of feet tall, next to a freeway, with a hundred pieces of steel hanging off of them.  "Occupied" or not we better not have anything fail and fall.

I don't want to stir up a hornets nest and I think the proper approach is education, which I'm working on as I get access to people, but some of this stuff like 'photo inspections' is just ass-o-nine and I have a real strong issue with contractors hiring their own inspectors as well.

Anyway - thanks for the replies guys, I just wanted to get some other opinions on that photo stuff, it sounds like you all hold the same opinion I do.