The proximity of the camera caused differences in both figures. In Figure 1, the plant is fully viewable in panels c and d. In Figure 2, some objects appear larger and the extent of the the photographed region is smaller. The angles of the pictures taken also caused differences in the replicated and original panels. Concerning photo a in both figures, the original figure is facing the plant head-on due to the presence of the surrounding plants behind the M. pudica in this photo. In the replicated figure, it appears to be a similar looking leaf chosen. Yet, in Figure 2, the angle of the photo leads me to believe the student was standing to the left of the plant, due to the rocks on the ground being visible. Also, the stems in panels c and d in the replicated figure are positioned in front. In the original figure, the stems are opposite where I am standing; I am facing the tips of the leaves.
Comments
It might be clearer if you
It might be clearer if you were to establish from the beginning which figure is "Figure 1" and which figure is "Figure 2" and then continue to refer to them as such, instead of sometimes referring to them as "the original figure" and "the replicate figure" throughout the paragraph.
comment
" In the original figure, the stems are opposite where I am standing; I am facing the tips of the leaves." Perhaps it is better to state where the camera is placed rather than your position which could be different from the camera's placement.
Suggestion
The sentence, "...due to the presence of the surrounding plants behind the M. pudica in this photo" felt a little ceative writing. I felt this was using too much words to describe the situation.