Different types of approximate calculation yield fundamentally similar shapes, especially with respect to arrangement of nodes.
For the qualitative purposes of Chem 125 we are interested in the similarities rather that in the differences of detail.

	Improved MOs calculated today in less than 1 minute on a laptop contoured where e-density would be 0.001 e/Å3 relatively far from nuclei (note scale of bond lengths)	Crude MOs calculated 25 years ago, when it was a real accomplishment using room-filling computers contoured where e-density would be 0.07 e/Å3 much higher value of psi; closer to nuclei
π* LUMO Leftovers; mostly 2pC antibonding with less 2pO This LUMO makes C=O a functional group
The difference in relative "size" of 2pC and 2pO is somewhat exaggerated, because the O function increases in density much more rapidly as it approaches the nucleus. If they made equal contributions to the MO, the O would look smaller, but not this much smaller. Compare with their relative sizes in the π MO, two rows below, where the O/C ratio is reversed.
Unshared pair HOMO in-plane 2pO slightly antibonding with lesser amount of 2 σCH contrast with third row below
πCO Mostly 2pO bonding with less 2pC contrast with second row above
σ unshared pair 2pO with minor contribution from two σCH contrast with second row below
Combination of two σCH p bonding with lesser amount of in-plane 2pO contrast with third row above
Combination of two σCH with minor contribution from 2pO contrast with second row above
σOC Bond mostly 2sO overlapping favorably with a lesser amount from C
	From MacSpartan Plus [3-21G(*) AOs]	From Salem and Jorgensen, Organic Chemist's Book of Orbitals Academic Press, 1973