In-class Exercise

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.

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.

Observations:

The four pictures put together on the left picture is bigger than the four pictures put together on the right. The pictures on the right are brighter than the pictures on the left. The sun on the left pictures appear to shine uniformly on the plants. Whereas the plants on the right have certain parts of the plants being lit up by the sun. The angles on both sides are different from one another. The plants that were being photographed were the same in both figures for “A, B and C” but for picture “D”, the images of the flowers were different. The font on the pictures on the right side is bolded and darker than the pictures on the font on the left side. There are no gaps on both of the figures. The order of the pictures is correct on both of the figures. 

Inferences:

The sizing for the images on both the figures were miscommunicated which resulted in different sizing between the two. The lighting in both the figures are different due to the different times of day the person went to photograph the plants. The sun shining on the whole plant uniformly and only on some parts are due to the time of day the person went to take the picture. The time of day affects where the sun is being positioned in the sky. The angle differences are due to the photographer. The difference in figure D may be due to the plant not being there at the time the person was there. Or the person may be confused by the description of the flower since both flowers are similar in color. The differences in the font may be due to the resizing of the images as a whole. Or due to the figures on the right side being bolded to make the font more visible.

The quality of the images on the two panels are notably different. The left is more vibrant and clearly shows the plants. However, the right side is slightly blurry and had less vivid coloring. This could be due to a different time of day during which the shots of the two panels were taken. At an earlier hour, or a sunnier day, the lighting could contribute to better displaying the subjects as they were captured in the left panel that had better coloring. Another factor that could have gone into this was the type of camera or settings on the camera that may cause the two colorings to become different. On top of that, the humitidy of the greenhouse could play a role in condensation around the lens. If the photographer did not clear the lens, it might have caused the images to become blurry in the right panel. The angles of the subjects are also different in the two panels. The left panel displays the plants facing straight forward, while the right panel looks slightly downward onto the plants. The way that the camera was directed at the subjects or the different heights of the person taking the photos could have been different. Someone taller could be looking downward on the plants, while someone who was shorter could have taken the photos directly facing them as they were taken in the left panel. The labeling of the images are different as well. Instead of simply labeling the images A, B, and C as it is done in the left panel, the right panel differs in that is labels the images from top to bottom, "A." then "B." then "C." This could have been miscommunicated in the methods or was not specifically mentioned. Another difference regarding the labels is the distance of the letters from the left side of the images. In the left panel, the letters are closer to the edge of the photos than in the right panel, which places the labels further from the left side of the images. The size of the subjects are also different in the two panels. This could be due to the distance of the photographer from the subjects. For the left panel, the subjects appear closer to the camera than the subjects on the right side panel. The table on which the plants lie are also not included in the image on the left, which also makes the subjects appear closer. The images of the right also feature some other plants on the side that are not the subject plant in each photo. Furthermore, the images on the right panel also capture the pot in which the plant was held as opposed to the images on the left panel, which also crops out most of the pot so that the soil and only some of the plant pot can be seen. This could be due all to the distance of the photographer from the subjects of the images.

Figure 1. Zebra Fish Embryo

Due to the Embryo being see through we are able to see the neutral crest cells, which are red, as well as the tubulin in the microtubules, which is colored green.

The Journal of Cell Biology Vol. 201, Issue5: etoc 1

https://www.flickr.com/photos/thejcb/8960743902

Figure 1. Seal- Point coloration In Cat. Cats with seal-point coloration are characterized by a beige colored body; dark brown ears, legs, and tail; and blue eyes. Photo by wapiko☆ available at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/wapiko57/6485554303/in/photolist-aT7akM-oeE5Rz-7Gk6tA-9FjWdg-nRPFr9-icrTAE-9BoHbr-7ca5oc-rbR7a7-eThqYx-roUC7z-a16dos-ahuXf8-8kcQvm-ftStXC-bhSTNx-djzcez-2cYgLsm-cPFfoq-drxap4-nuxVgB-nKbfp3-r2R9M6-r6ud1t-9YtoNu-bsyM7j-2dvnm21-TB7gmW-pUVx5E-a7eijz-ehRHug-dEtDjV-jaE9xb-9jPwYH-g8AtE4-iWEJPL-9BJiXF-BMkFXA-qVYoj6-9pMdEi-e1u5tE-piv3bR-bsiGD5-p2i2j6-agibV3-krcvUD-eDobk7-djzdBB-quyNsV-rRUeFg under CC by 2.0 license