Blogs

On page 28 there are two sets of three pictures displaying different parts of a tree. Assuming that the top row of pictures was taken independently, and that the bottom row of pictures tried to replicate the original set, we can infer different facts. The first inference is that the person who took the original set of pictures wrote as well a description of how they were obtained, and the second person followed this set of instructions to produce his photographs. We can infer this because both sets of pictures look very similar, and if someone had the task to photograph a tree they could have gone to any tree, but in this case all the pictures show the same tree and the same areas of it.

We can infer as well that the two sets of pictures were taken with different cameras or filters, since the bottom row has different lightning than the top row, which could be due to a failure to explicitly explain to use the normal set up of the camera or a specific model of photographic device. It can be inferred as well that the sets of pictures were probably taken at different times of the day, although with no major differences in timing, because the position of the light falling over the sap in the middle picture changes slighlty between rows.

Looking at picture b in the top and bottom row, we can notice that the top row is clearly focused on the trunk of the tree and there is no background, while in the bottom row there is a little bit of background on the left and more space of the tree can be appreciated. From these observations we can infer that the second person took this picture further away from the tree than the first person, or that the first person zoomed in closer to the tree trunk than the second person.

Regarding the format of the figures, the top row of pictures has white letters in black boxes placed on the upper left corner of each image. While the bottom row of pictures has also black boxes with letters on the upper left corner of each image, the size of the letters is much smalller, and the placement of the boxes shifts slightly out of frame for the left and right pictures. As well, the spacing between pictures differs between the top and bottom rows, the top one having bigger pictures with less space in-between. From these observations we can infer that in the description of the methods of the first person there were no specifications regarding letter size or spacing, but there were mentions to using specific letters for labelling each picture, as well as using black boxes on the top left corners and white color for the letters.

The labeling between each of the figures is consistent, with a black square in the upper left of each image and white lettering. However, the font seems to differ, which is especially visible when comparing the "C" labels. The placment of the images themsleves also differs slightly. In the second figure, images are spaced apart further, while they are closer together in the first figure.

The framing of the pictures taken seems to be different. In the second figure, photographs look to be taken at more of an angle, with much more of the surrounding area visible. Images in the first figure are taken closer up and show much less of the surrounding area. The number of flowers visible in the images is also different when comparing the two figures. This brings into question whether or not the exact same flowers are being photographed in the exact same area.

The angle of the ruler differs between figures too, although this may be a consequence of the different camera angles used. Distance at which the ruler was held is not consistent between figures either. The second figure in particular seems to have the ruler held at varying distances, while the first image is more consistnent in its distance. There are fingers visible in the first figure, while there is an absence of fingers in the second.

Overall lighting in the first figure looks to be much better and brighter. However in the second figure the lighting is dimmer, which may suggest overcast skys. The lighting and time of day at which the photographswere taken should have been controlled. The first figure has overall clearer images than the second, which is somewhat blurry. This may be due to a difference in the photographic device used to take the pictures, although it may be a stability and zoom/focus problem while taking the picture itself.

The two pictures may look the same at first, but they have some difference such as figure A where in the left picture you see a hand holding a ruler with a blue tape and in the right picture you see the plant that shows an environment and see more things that was shown in the left figure. There is a different font one is bigger than the other one.

Figure B shows how the left figure was taken with high resolution camera that captures more the shape of the plant and their colors better. A ruler was used recording 12cm as the height of the plant. In the other figure you can hardly see the measurement of the plant taken in a different angle and you can also see another plant in the back that wasn’t in the first picture of the B figure.

Figure C shows that this are taken from different angles and their colors changes in the left picture and the right picture. Again, it seems this picture was taken in a different time of day

My Inference was the time of day, zooming of the camera and some objects that are in the first picture that are not in the rest of the pictures.Perhaps the person of the original figure did not specify the measurements or angles so that the other person could match it as much as posiible.

I immediately observed that the figures had a lot of dimorphisms. The three images were all quite different across the original figure and the replicate. The original images were more zoomed in and centered, and they did not include any arrows for indication. On the other hand, the replicate had pink arrows designating the area of the subject, and the images were further zoomed out. On the original figure, the label boxes were placed in the bottom left corner of each of the parts of the figure. The replica had them in the top left corner and they were much larger. The first and second image of the original figure show the same area, but the grass looks darker and the shadows projecting from the flagpoles moved. The most similar parts of the two figures were the placement of the images and their sizes they were both very similar in that regard. Each image was placed under the one before it, and they were all uniform in size for both of the figures. In the first part of the figure, the sidewalk leading into Whitmore is not present, but in the second, it is. Most notably, the bush at the bottom of the figure is not present in the first image on both of the figures.

    With all of these observations in mind, I would infer that the methods for how the original figure was created were vague. They probably did not specify how zoomed in the locations were, or how they chose to frame them. Also, I think that it’s safe to assume that they did not give specifics to the placement or construction of the labels. But since all of the images in the figure were organized in same way across both of the figures and the sizes were so similar, I believe that that part was clear.

    Because there was a very similar movement of shadows from the first part of the figure to the second part, I assume the map images were taken at different times in the day. This would explain the difference in shadow placement. Due to the fact that the bush at the bottom of the image or the sidewalk leading into Whitmore is not present in the first part of both figures but is there in the second means that these images were taken at separate times.  Nonetheless, these inferences pertaining to the way that the methods were constructed could all be wrong because the methods may have detailed all of these things but the person tasked with copying them just didn’t put in enough effort.

Labeling is consistent in both images, with a dark square in the upper left of each image and white lettering. The font of this lettering does some somewhat different however. This difference is particularly noticeable when comparing the “C” labels. The framing of the flowers in the photo differs between the two figures, that is, in the second figure the images seem to be taken at an angle, and more of the surrounding area is visible in them. The original first image has close ups, and shows little of the surrounding area. Also the direction of the ruler is different, although this may be due to the angle the picture was taken at. Distance between ruler and flower may differ as well and the second figure seems less consistent with the distance at which the ruler was held. It is unclear if these are the exact same flowers in the exact same area. It is unlikely this is the case due to the differing number of flowers in each image when comparing the figures. Additionally, the images are much brighter in the original first figure, while it seems like weather is overcast in the second figure. Overall the original first figure has clearer images, the second figure is blurry. This may be due to different photographic devices being used. The sizing of the images are consistent, though the placement is not. In the second image the images are further apart, leaving larger gaps between them. The second figure also lacks the presence of fingers, unlike the first.

On page 1 there are two figures, each with 4 panels lettered A-D. Each picture contains a ruler and appears to be measuring a plant. The figure on the left is broken up into a top half and a bottom half, separated by a white bar. The figure on the right has pictures that are not touching and are all seprate. The letters are all located in the top left corner of each image. I can infer that the person who wrote the methods for this image wrote them well because these two figures are very similar.

The same plant is in both figures, and each lettered figure shows the same angle and part of the plant. They both use inches instead of centimeters to measure the plant. I can infer that these two figures were made to observe the lengths of various aspects of this plant, based on the observations of the ruler next to various parts of the plant. All of the pictures are taken from the same angle which shows that the methods were clear and direct. 

            The two figures are similar in that they have the same focal subjects but otherwise, they are entirely different. To start, the picture of the tree is more zoomed in and focused on what appear to be the dead limbs. Following that, the aerial pictures in this figure are also zoomed in or cropped as to show the detail of the environment. Conversely, the figure on the right has a broader view. The pictures are more zoomed out and capture the whole field of view, even to the point that the two aerial view pictures are not as focused and still show the control buttons from what looks like google maps. When it comes to labeling, the figure on the left uses simple, red, uppercase letters whereas the figure on the right uses black lower-case lettering inside of a white box so that it stands out in the picture. I also noticed a difference in sizing of the pictures; the images on the left are more cohesive and rectangular whereas the images on the right are condensed and boxy. Lastly, there I a difference in picture quality. The figure on the left seems to be brighter and a little blurry as compared to its counterpart that is sharp and clear.

I notice a few major difference between the figure panels. The image panel to the left looks to have distorted pictures; more specifically, the picture in the top left corner. The picture of a flower pot looks a bit flattened, whereas the replicate picture on the right figure panel looks to be cropped correctly. I also notice that the overall color and fade of the figure panels are different. The left figure panel has clear, bright coloring, whereas the right figure panel looks a bit gloomy. This difference is most likely due to the difference in time of day when the figure panels were taken. Additionally, the right figure panel seems to have some shadows over the plant pictures which makes me think that these picture were taken when the sun was going down. The angle at which all the picture were taken in both panels differ; the left figure panel had a more straight on approach to the pictures, and the right figure panel has pictures that are angled to the right of the plant. Lastly, there is an obvious difference between the flower captured in the bottom right hand of each figure panel. The flower looks extremely different in both pictures which makes me infer that these are not the same flowers.

As for the formatting of these panels, the figure set-up looks to be almost spot on. The formatting of each picture looks correct, with no gaps in between the pictures. The order of the pictures, left to right, looks the same as well. However, the number labeling of these pictures differs between the two panels, as the font size in the right panel looks larger than the font in the left panel. Additionally, the overall panel size of the right figure is a bit larger than the left figure; I assume measurements images were not taken carefully.

On page 28 there are two sets of three pictures displaying different parts of a tree. Assuming that the top row of pictures was taken independently, and that the bottom row of pictures tried to replicate the original set, we can infer different facts. The first inference is that the person who took the original set of pictures wrote as well a description of how they were obtained, and the second person followed this set of instructions to produce his photographs. We can infer this because both sets of pictures look very similar, and if someone had the task to photograph a tree they could have gone to any tree, but in this case all the pictures show the same tree and the same areas of it. We can infer as well that the two sets of pictures were taken with different cameras or filters, since the bottom row has different lightning than the top row, which could be due to a failure to explicitly explain to use the normal set up of the camera or a specific model of photographic device. Finally, we can infer that the sets of pictures were probably taken at different times of the day, although with no major differences in timing, because the position of the light falling over the sap in the middle picture changes slighlty between rows.

From the photos, you can conclude that these two pictures were taken at different angles and time throughout the day. the first set of photos show a bush covered in snow half way up its branch, a tree located in a parking lot with a snow hill, and the library with the focus placed on a dead tree. The second picture tries to recreate the original copies but does not because figure a does not have the snow covering more than half the branch height as what was observed in the original, figure b has darker snow in front of the tree than the original figure b, and figure c is pictured at a different angle than the original. The format of the copied figure is not similar to the original either the figures are closed in the corner whereas the original has a more spaced out format with no mandated spacing.