The differences in image quality are due to the fact that the two photographers took the photos with different types of phones. The creator of Fig. 1 used an android phone, while the creator of Fig. 2 used an iPhone. The two styles each have their own type of camera, and as such the image comes out looking slightly different. The difference in card used to measure the flower is also a result of differences between the two photographers. The photographer for Fig. 1 chose to use a “Dunkin Donuts” gift card to provide scale, an object which the photographer for Fig. 2 did not have. Fig. 2 contains the back of a “Ucard”, which was chosen by the second photographer due to its similar shape and size to the gift card.
You are here
Many of the discrepancies between the two figures relate to the details of the flower on the plant. Based off of the fact that the images of the flower appear so different, along with the fact that the flower present in the center of Fig. 1a is no longer present in Fig. 2, it becomes clear that the flower for Fig. 1 was no longer present at the time Fig. 2 was taken. The attempt to follow the methods was unable to take a picture of the same flower, and so took a picture of a different one. This was the result of a variable which was not controlled for, public access to the plant. Roughly one week passed between the taking of the two pictures, during which time the conservatory containing the plant was open for public access. In future experiments, it would be wise to pick a plant kept somewhere more secure, without the possibility of tampering.
The majority of the differences in the two figures are in relation to the details of the flower on the plant. Based off of the fact that the images of the flower appear so different, along with the fact that the flower present in Fig. 1a is no longer present in Fig. 2, it becomes clear that the flower for Fig. 1 was no longer present at the time Fig. 2 was taken. This was the result of a variable which was not controlled for, public access to the plant. Roughly one week passed between the taking of the two pictures, during which time the conservatory containing the plant was open for public access. In future experiments, it would be wise to pick a plant which had no chance of being tampered with.
Similarly to panel B, the flower in Fig. 1d and the flower in Fig. 2d have differing shapes. Along with that, in Fig. 1d, the card held above the flower has many orange and pink letter D’s, while the card in Fig. 2d has a black stripe, small words, and a “Ucard” logo. The cards are being held on opposite sides of the image in each picture, the left in Fig. 1d and the right in Fig. 2d. The flower takes up more of the image in Fig. 2d, while Fig. 1d includes some background of the plant.
In panel A, the major difference between the two figures is that the flower at the center of Fig. 1a is not present in the Fig. 2a. In Fig. 1a, the leaves of the plant are shown sharply, with defined edges. In Fig. 2a, the leaves are slightly blurred at the edge, resulting in a less clean looking image. The flower in Fig. 1b has a formed circular shape, whereas the flower in Fig. 2b is less shapely, with petals sticking out at edges.
The two figures appear to feature different trees. The large tree in figure 1 has a large gash facing the camera, while the tree in figure 2 does not. The growth pattern of the branches is also different between the two trees. It can also be observed that the background behind the trees is different in the two images.
In figure 2, long shadows can be seen in the photograph which can not be seen in figure 1. In figure 2 the sky behind the tree is blue, but the sky in figure 1 appears white. This implies that the image in figure 1 was taken on a cloudy day, and the image in figure 2 was taken on a clear day.
The two detail panels of figure 1 are very close and focused on details of a specific leaf and bark. In figure 2 however, the images are more zoomed out, showing more of the plant. It seems that the photographer of figure 1 got very close to the plant, whereas the photographer of figure 2 stayed further away.
Figure 1 was made cleanly with borders dividing each image, creating a rectangular figure. Figure 2 has all the images touching, and has edges ending at different spots, causing the figure to have an irregular shape. The labels of figure one contain more words and more detail than the labels in figure 2. From these observations, it can be inferred that the creater of figure 1 put more time and effort into creating the figure than did the creater of figure 2.
I can see a person crying while wearing clothing with a sports team logo. From that I could infer that the team they support recently lost a game.
The plant was located by entering the Durfee Conservatory via the West entrance. The plant was the closest in the left row along the aisle. To photograph the whole plant, the photographer stood by the entrance door and aimed his phone camera at the plant. He then walked backwards towards the right of the building until the whole plant could fit in the frame of the picture. The close-up picture of the flower was taken of the closest flower to the door along the aisle side of the plant. The phone was moved close to the flower in order to frame the flower in the image and the photo was taken. To provide a scale, another picture was taken with a “Dunkin Donuts” gift card held above the flower. The name of the plant was taken from a card on the pillar from which the plant was growing.
Creating the Figure
Four individual images were composited together in Inkscape to form the final figure. Each image was given a small letter in the upper left corner of the image, from A-D. The coordinates and dimensions of each image are located in the table below.
The map was created via use of a website at “mapchart.net/world.html”. On this site, the countries China, Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea were highlighted in red. The image was then saved and downloaded in a .png format, which could then be used in the figure.