In-class Exercise

Observational Differences:

1. The bottom panel is more blurry than the top panel.

2. The pictures of pannel1&2A and 1&2B are not the same distance from the camera in the bottom panel.  This is due to the differnet bee sizes as well as the different leaf sizes. 

3. The Flowers in 1 and 2 B panels are not the same color.

4. There is no glass rim in 1A or 1B

5. There is no gray surface in 1A or 1B

6. The width and color of the bees do not appear to be consistent betwee the 2panels.

7. There appears to be a light source illuminuating 1A and 1B 

8. The leaves in panel A appear to be facing in different directions. 

9. The bee is resting in a flower in Panel 2B however it is residing on leaves in 1B

Inferences:

1. Different cameras were used given the degrees of clarity.

2. Different bees were used given the differences in size and color

3. The speciments used in the bottom photohraph are not the same as the top given the array of differences.

4. The photograph was taken at a later date due to the flowers having changed.

5. The photograph was taken in a different location or at a different time of day due to the degrees of lighting differences. 

Starting the observational paragraph:

Perfect replication of any experiment or action is an unfair expectation in experimental science. The complexity and wide array of variables that simply cannot be controlled will always contribute to indescrepancies between data.  However, these differences should be expected and properly acknowledged or explained. Here we see that even a brief comparison of the two figures allows one to find several discrepencies, including distance from the material, level of focus,  time of day and location of the photograph, that are likely secondary to variables not approrriately discussed in the methods section above.

For the capture of clear, useful information while photographing detailed objects, such as insects, the distance one captures the image and the level of focus used help one construct clear and informative images. Based on the dife

Both of these figures display two pictures of a building, pictures A and B, and one of a tree, picture C. They are fairly similar upon first impression. They are both aerial views of a building that appear to have been taken during different seasons and this may have been an instruction in this person’s methods section. This is an inference based upon the observation that the trees are fuller in one of the aerial pictures, however in Figure One picture A has full trees, whereas in Figure Two, picture B has full trees. Pictures A and B in Figure One appear have been taken at a farther distance as opposed to Pictures A and B in Figure Two. Picture C in Figure One features a bright and greener tree with a bluer sky, whereas Figure Two’s Picture C appears to be in less sunlight. One inference I could make from this is that Figure One’s Picture C was taken earlier in the day than Figure Two’s Picture C. The building featured in Figure Two’s Picture A and B appears to be animated and the building does not seem to fit in with the background of the picture which appears to be more natural. An inference I could make is that this person photoshopped or edited the image. Figure Two Picture A has an arrow pointing to the tree and Figure One does not have any arrows.

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.

The two different figures have many differences. One difference is that in Figure 1 the smokers pictures are to the left (A and C) and the nonsmokers are to the right (B and D), while in Figure 2 the nonsmokers are to the left (A and C) and the smokers to the right (Band D). Another difference is in Figure 1 there is a split of gender by the girls have the top two pictures (A and B) and the boys have the bottom two pictures (C and D). In Figure 2 the boys are on the top two photos (A and B) while the girls are the bottom two photos (C and D). The figures are taken in different places. Figure 1 A shows that woman smokers have a lung volume of 2.7 L while in Figure 1 B the nonsmoker woman has a lung volume of 4.7 L. The male smoker has a volume of 5.5 L shown in Figure 1 C and the nonsmoker male has a lung volume of 6.0 L shown in Figure 1 D. In Figure 2 the volumes are significantly lower. The smoker woman has a volume of 1.7 L shown in Figure 2 D, while the nonsmoker woman has the lung volume of 2.5 L shown in Figure 2 C. In Figure 2 B, the male smoker's lung volume is 2.5 L and in Figure 2 A, the male nonsmoker's lung volume is 3.5 L. In Figure 1 A and B, the woman shown have different hair colors, height, and ethnicities than the woman shown in Figure 2 C and D. Also the men from Figure 1 C and D also have different hair color and height than the men shown in Figure 2 A and B.  The discrepancies in these two figures can be the result of the pictures being taken in two different environment and have different people in each photo. The lung volumes can be because the people shown in each figure are different and therefore can have different lung volumes. The lung volumes can be different if the people from Figure 1 had more time to fill up the instrument of measurement compared to the people from Figure 2. Also since there seem to be from different environments, the ages of those shown in Figure 1 could be different from Figure 2 therefore that could factor into the different volumes obtained. 

Observations:

Part A

• The location of tree is different in figure 2
• The trunk width of the tree is smaller in figure 2
• The entire tree is in the photo in figure 2, not just the branches closest to the base like in figure 1
• The distance from the tree is larger in figure 2

Part B

• The arrow used is smaller, thinner , and at an angle in figure 2, but are the color black in both figures
• The leaves are shiny instead of matte in figure 2
• The leaves the arrow is pointing to are green instead of yellow in figure 2

Part C

• The trunk is not straight in figure 2 like it is in figure 1
• The trunk is more close up in figure 2
• The arrow is smaller and thinner in figure 2 and at a different angle 

Inferences:

Part A 

• The location of the exact tree photographed in figure 1 was not included in the methods, maybe the location of another tree of the same species was included.
• A different tree was imaged in figrue 2 and was probably not the same age as the tree imaged in figure 1
• The photographer was standing father from the tree in figure 2, therefore there may not have been a description of how much of the tree was included in figure 1A
• The distance in figure 2 changed maybe because the photographer was including the entire tree in the image, unlike in figure 1 where only the bottom half of the tree was included

Part B

• There was most likely not a description of the size of the arrows included in figure 1, but there was consistant coloring 
• The leaves look much different in figure 2, maybe this is due to the time of year the tree was imaged in figure 2 differing from that of figure 1.  This also could be an indication that these trees may look very similar, but they are not exactly the same species
• There was either not a description of the yellow of the leaf imaged in figure 1, or there were no yellow leaves on the tree imaged in figure 2 so they had to settle with green

Part C

• The trunks of both trees are straight (as seen in part A) but the second figure has an crooked image of the trunk.  There may not have been description about the orientation of the trunk in figure 1
• The trunk may be more close up because the amount of the trunk included in figure 1 cwas specified in the methods, but because the trunk in figure 2 is smaller it had to be closer to the camera to fill the space
• The arrow is also not the same width in figure 2 as it is in figure 1, it is also at a different angle in figure 2 than in figure 1 which may illustrate that there was no description of arrow orienation either

From these figures I can observe that the plant is growing and at every new stage of growth a picture is taken to document it. From these three figures I can infer that the the growth of the plant is being documented for record, possibly a science experiment. I notice that at each stage of growth for the plant that the leaves become fuller and fuller, the progression from figure a to figure b is a clear sign of fullness in the plant. The height of the plant also increases as it grows, I noticed a particular spurt of growth when comparing figures b and c. The stems of the plant are also growing as well, as they are expanding their width and leaves seem to bloom on the end of what now appears to be branches to this miniature tree that is growing, this can clearly be observed in the last figure, figure c. In the transition from figure b to figure c, the tree has shifted its form to becoming more vertical, allowing for the tree to stretch its branches out more and take up more acquired space. 

Differences for Image 3

Observations:

1. Figure “A” is smaller in the original.
2. Figure “B” captures most of the tree in the original, while only a few branches in the replicate.
3. There is one blue angles arrow in figure “B” of the original, while there there are two white arrow heads in the replicate.
4. There is a blue arrow pointing to the left branch on figure “C”, while there is a white arrow head pointing to the right branch in the replicate.
5. The letters in the original are very small, while the letters in the replicate are fairly large.
6. The picture in the original were taken on a sunny day, while the pictures of the replicate were taken on a cloudy overcast day.
7. There are white bars between the photos in the original, while the photos in the replicate are connected.

Inferences:

1. The original did not specify the size of the left most figure, figure “A”.
2. The original did not specify the angle of the picture for figure “B”.
3. The original did not specify the types of arrows used or how many.
4. The original did not specify the types of arrows used or how many.
5. The original did not specify the font size for the letters.
6. The original did not specify the time of day or weather during the photographing.
7. The original did not specify whether the figures were supposed to be aligned or spaced apart.

• In Figure 2, it has a purple arrow pointing to flags, while Figure 1 doesn’t.
• In the Figure 2, the letter labels are in bigger font and in the top right of the photos, while in Figure 1, the letter labels are smaller and in the bottom right of the photo.
  
  • Inference: the original creator didn’t specify where to place the labels
• In the Figure 2, the area captured is larger and the buildings look smaller.
  
  • Inference: The student on the right used the same maps program (visible from the similar car patterns), however they were more zoomed out than the student on the left.

• In Figure 2c, more of the UMass bush landmark is visible.
• In Figure 1c, there is a big white circus tent in the background.

Differences

• Figures A, B, and C not vertically aligned
• Small black speck on plate
• Plate polish
• Different fruits
• Shadows
• Text size
• Title alignment

Figure A

• Angle (bird's eye)
• Background
• Skin thickness

Figure B

• Angle (bird's eye)
• Background
• Color (pale green)
• Shape

Figure C

• Angle (bird's eye)
• Background
• Color (white/tan)
• Stem

Possible Reasons

• Did not specify background
• Did not specify angle
• Can not use exact same plate and fruits

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.