Blogs

Observations:

• Top figure is taken “more zoomed in”
• Bottom figure has a blue-green hue on each picture
• The labels use completely different fonts
• There is more spacing between the images in the bottom figure than the top figure
• The black backgrounds of the labels in the bottom figure are not as carefully placed into the corners as others in top figure (they are also much bigger in the bottom figure)
• In picture a of top figure, the tree is more centered in the frame than in picture a in the bottom figure
• In picture b of the top figure the focus is very clearly the  “hole” in the tree vs the bottom picture b you can see some of the background behind the tree both picture a’s were taken at different angles
• The lighting in the pictures is very different on the trees

Inferences:

• The photographer for the bottom figure may have been shorter and unable to get exact angles/correct amount of zoom on the tree
• The photographer for the bottom figure may not have realized there was a filter on their camera/didn’t use the same camera as the photographer in top figure
• There may not have been specific directions on what exact font to use for the labels/how big to make the squares
• There may not have been exact directions on how wherein the frame the subject’s should have been (ex. In the middle)
• The amount of space between images may not have been defined in the methods
• The pictures may have been taken at different times of day/in different weather and could have caused different shadows on the tree

Paragraphs:

The top and bottom figures generally look alike. However, there is quite a distinct difference in the hues of the photos. The top figure has a natural daylight hue opposed to the bottom figure which has a blue-green hue. This coloring distracts from what the images are attempting to display. This difference could have occurred under a couple conditions such as the photographer did not realize there was a filter on their camera or they did not use the same camera as the photographer did in the top figure.

Another apparent difference is the size of the objects in each image. The top figure appears to be more zoomed in/objects look larger in each of the photos than the bottom figure. This can clearly be seen when comparing photos and viewing the background. This may have been a difference because of different settings on the camera, such as the zoom being different. This also could be because the photographer in the top photo may have been taller than the photographer in the bottom photo.

Slide 22:

• Pictures in the diagram on the left are closer than the ones on the right

  • This could be for the purpose of a better look at the leaves or because the camera wasn't as good

• There is a hand in image A on the left but no hand in any other image

  • The ruler must of had to be moved, it could have been out of the picture initially because the zoom is different

• The sizing of images A and C on the right are the same while on the left photos B and C are the same

  • The camera orientation could have been different, or this organization is more appealing to look at

• The coloring appears different between the two diagrams

  • All the pictures on the left are brighter than the right

  • This could be purposeful as to make for better observation or the position of the camera could have been under a light.

  • It's possible the flash was used as well

There are quite a few differences between the diagram of images on the right versus the diagram of images on the left, one of which is that the images on the left are a lot closer up. This could be due to the zooming effect of the camera. Different cameras have different auto zooms so this could have played a role. This could be on purpose to show more observations at a closer view. This also could have had ripple effects, such as the light changing because of the angle of the picture, and the colors looking different. Also, becasue of the fact that it's a closer picture and there has to be a ruler in the picture for size, the ruler had to be moved which casues a hand to be in the picture in the figure on the left.

The first thing I noticed is that the first and second photos in the figure are in reversed positions in each of the figures, so that photo A in Figure 1 is the equivalent to Photo B in Figure 2.

Both figures include a photo of the tree taken from a distance, however in the photo in Figure 1 there is snow around the tree but not directly in front of it, while in Figure 2 there is snow all around the tree. This indicates that the photos were possibly taken at different points in time: whichever picture was taken first must have been taken either before it snowed more, or after some of the snow had melted. This photo in Figure 1 was also taken from further away than the equivalent photo in Figure 2. 

Both figures include closeup photos of a knot in the tree and a pine needle on the ground in the snow, but the closeup photos in Figure 2 include a ruler for scale, which the photos in Figure 1 do not. The labels in Figure 2 are overall smaller than the labels in Figure 1.

The black background of the labels fits much tighter around the letters in Figure 2, and the letters are also of a different font.

The day and time the photos were taken can be said to be the same. The lighting is similar to one another. However, panel A is more zoomed in the picture than panel a. The stem and the grass patch can be seen in panel a, where the distance the photographer was standing was different. The orientation and lighting look quite the same, but it is a little brighter in A than a.

            For panel b and c. The lighting is the same. The zoom, the adjusting of scale is different causing panel B, and C only showing the parking lot and the building, where panel b, and c show the tree patch and the components panel B, and C are presenting. In panel b, and c, there also is a scale bar at the top right corner which in Panel B, and C it is invisible.

            The quality of photos, color, and the size as on big panel match between both panels. The lack of instruction in where the photographer took the photograph made the replicator not able to have the correct zoom to the tree, nor the map. Also if the photographer has instructed how to change the ratio of each photo  to create the one big panel, there would be no difference in each panel size.

On page 25, there are a lot of differences between the two figure compilations created. I observe that the group on the left is smaller in size than the one on the right. The images of the flower in the compilation on the left have longer widths and shorter heights than the ones on the right. The image compilation on the right has labels in the top left corner of each image while the compilation on the left does not. The spacing between the images in each compilation is also different: the compilation on the left is more spaced while the one on the right is closer together. These could all be a result of lack of specificity when formatting the images on Inkscape. For example, the heights and widths of the image, as well as their spacing apart from each other, may not have been described in adequate detail.
There are also subtle differences between the two compilations that become apparent upon closer examination. In the compilation on the right, the image of the map has a slight blue background as opposed to the image of the map on the left, that has a white background. This causes the map on the left to blend into the background of the entire compilation. The map on the right also has less of Middle America highlighted in red than the image of the map on the left. These could also be due to a lack of specificity in formatting description, but could also just be a result of forgetfulness since the details are so minor.
The orientations of each image are also different between the two compilations. The image of the single flower on the left is more zoomed out and in a birds-eye-view orientation in comparison to the corresponding image on the right, which is more zoomed in and has a perspective set on the top and side of the flower. The image of the entire plant on the left is more zoomed out than the one on the right and includes more surroundings of the plant. The image of the entire plant on the right is slightly more zoomed in and oriented to the right. The last image of the map is zoomed in more on the right in comparison to the corresponding image on the left. These could all be due to height differences in the photographer or zoom capabilities of the camera. Perhaps there were different obstacles in the surrounding areas of each plant that caused this contrast in orientation of the images as well.

Observations

1. The figure on the left has uniform sized images but the figure on the right has one different sized image.

2. The angles at which the photos were taken are different in both figures.

3. The figure on the left had bold text labeling, the figure on the right did not.

4. The figure on the left placed letters slightly away from the edge of the photo, the figure on the right had had the letters lined with the side of the image.

5. The images on the right were brought to the outer edge of the black background whereas on the left they were not.

6. The backgrounds of the images aren’t corresponding.

There are multiple differences between both the left and right figures. However, the most apparent difference is the size of images within the figure. For example, the photos on the left figure are all uniform in size, all photos on the right figure are uniform in size except for the photo labeled D. The angle at which every photo was taken is different in both figures, none of which correspond. Additionally the background of the image was different in every instance and again did not correspond with the other figure. The figures are lettered in the same order, A, B, C, D. The font size and placement of the lettering is different between the two separate figures, but remains consistent within the figure itself. Another difference in the lettering is the alignment with the side of the image, on the left figure the letters are left a small distance away from the edge of the photos while in the right figure the letters are lined up with the side of the images. Another difference is that the spacing between the photos and between the edges of the figure on different.

Inferences

1. The last image (D) may have been cropped different on the right figure, or the camera was held at a different orientation.

2. The camera was most likely held at different heights, possibly because the person taking the pictures were different heights or maybe one used a tripod and the other did not.

3. The font choice was slightly different between authors, also resulting in a different bolding of the images.

4. The function to align the letters used by both authors may have been in a different software of different function within the same software.

5. The separate authors may have set margins to different widths causing the images to be differently set.

6. It might be a picture of a similar but tree, the angle at which they were photographed may also be different.

The difference in size of images between figures may be due to the orientation at which the photographer held the camera for that image, the image may have also been cropped differently. The angle of the photos may be be different because the the height of the photographer may be different, additionally they could have been standing in different places, at or on different things, or using different equipment. These same factors could also contribute to why the background would be different. The font size and placement of letters on the figure could have been caused by a different software used by both authors, or different setting applied to different figures. Similarly the alignment of images to the background within the separate figures may have been due to different software used or different setting applied by the author.

After observing the two figures side by side I noticed a few differences in the construction and the making of the figures. Figure 1 (the figure on the left-hand side) has photos in which the objects appear larger and have an overall better-quality image compared to those in figure 2. This could possibly be because figure 1 was created using a more advanced camera device and the camera could have been zoomed in more or taken from a closer angle. Figure 1 is also much brighter and more yellow colored than figure two potentially due to the lighting that was used when capturing the images. As far as the construction of putting the figures together, the orientation of the figures are different. Figure 1 is aligned horizontally meanwhile figure 2 is aligned vertically. I would infer that this is because no instructions were given on how the figures should be oriented. Lastly the font to label the images as well as the border used around the images are different. Once again I would infer that either not details of what font or border to use were provided or a different software may have been used to create the figures.

I made eight observations about the left and right figures on page 14, and from these observations, I made three inferences. I observed the letter labels on the left figure were in the bottom right corner of each image, while the letter labels on the right figure were in the upper left corner of each image. I observed the letter labels were also in different fonts sizes and styles, with the left figure using a relatively larger and serif font while the right figure used a relatively smaller and sans-serif font. From these three observations, I inferred that the methods provided did not explicate how the original labels were created. I observed the space between the panels of each figure were different, with the left figure panels being relatively further apart than the right figure panels. From this observation, I inferred that the methods provided did not offer instructions on how to space the panels. I observed that panel A in the left figure frames the hedge at an angle, while panel C in the right figure frames the hedge parallel to the edge of the photo. I observed panel B in the left figure shows the full height of the subject tree, while panel B of the right figure cuts off the top of the tree. I observed panel C of the left figure has the subject tree centered, while panel C of the right figure has the tree on the far left. Despite these differences, the photos from both figures contained the same landmarks in the surrounding and background. From these four observations, I inferred that the methods provided did offer details of the position the photographer was standing in for each photo, but did not offer instructions on how to frame the subject of each photo. 

The first thing that I noticed was the letters, whoever added the letters on the photos used different fronts for them and they also bigger than the others. For examples in the first photo, letter "B" is bigger than the other "B" and darker. It could be that the person wanted others to be able to identify which letter is which when he or she is talking about when presenting these photos.

When I look at the maps there is a part on there which is the United States that separates the States and you can identify them easily but on the second map you can't really identify the States very well. There is a tiny region on the second way down after you pass the US region that is highlighted in red and on the second map it was not highlighted. On the first map Florida is in red but on the second map it is in gray.

The pictures of the flowers were taken at a different angle. The first A is futher away than the second A and it is more zoomed in. On the other hand, it's the opposite for letter B, the first photo is closer than the second one and I can see the bench more on the first picture than the second B. In the first picture (A ), there is another red flower on top of the main one in focus but on the second photo I can see multiples flowers even though they are not clear but you can still see them.