One difference is that figure 1 is a close-up of the pine cone. While in figure 2 is further away from the camera. A potential factor causing this is the distance between the photographer and the pine cone.
In figure 1, the background is brighter, giving the picture more detail. In figure 2, however, the picture is dark, making it hard to make out the texture of the pine cone. Given the white background of the picture, in figure 1 the photographer must have used the flash feature on his camera or had a light aimed at the pine cone. While in figure 2 the photographer relied the regular lighting of the room.
Also the scale in figure 1 has no units, which makes it hard to quanitify the size of the pine cone. Figure 2 has a scale with centimeters as its unit, giving the reader a reference of size. The photographer in figure 2 could have used a ruler to measure his pine cone and the photographer in figure 1 did not use one.
In figure 1, the figures are in a horizontal orientation (side by side). In figure 2, the figures are in a vertical orientaion (top and bottom). The person who created the original figure did not specify the orientation of the figures.