Goodness me. The first one looks pretty familiar; I've seen lots of spiders like that, up to about an inch and a bit across (including the legs). The second is quite unusual and impressive. With those really thick legs, I'm guessing it was a lot smaller than the other one? How big?
(Should have left a ruler casually lying around each shot :-)
Becky was saying the second one had fooled people before, though I didn't expect the photo to get anyone! For the record the first was under an inch including legs.
I'd have found it hard to believe the second one was a large spider, but as a really tiny one (bearing in mind that I don't have any real idea of the limitations of your shiny camera lenses and the plain background removes all scale clues) it might have been credible at first glance.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-10 08:04 am (UTC)(Should have left a ruler casually lying around each shot :-)
(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-10 08:05 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-10 08:35 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-10 08:38 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-10 10:14 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-10 10:40 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-10 11:42 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-10 08:42 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-10 11:42 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-10 08:41 am (UTC)I'm afraid that I unceremonously dumped the first one outside this morning so I could use my bath, so no more piccies :-(. It's come out really well.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-10 10:17 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-10 10:21 am (UTC)