That's the same link I just posted earlier.
Regarding specific images, you (and anybody else) planning to submit digital images and/or prints should familiarize themselves with attributes and defect factors when deciding which images to submit. True photographic appreciation is in the eye of each beholder, but there are certain criteria which caving salon images are scored on. For that reason, both images mentioned by Martha are unlikely to do well when judged.
The detailed criteria for print salon judging can be found
here. Note this is dated 2006, and some of the rules/guidelines are open to being reinterpreted and bent rather a lot. For example, the list of defects includes "
cave formations, rooms etc. that have been photographed many times (e.g. ... Neversink)." And yet the medal winner at the 2009 convention/ICS was clearly a shot of Neversink.
Also the first item in general criteria states entries will not be accepted if "
not related to caves or caving. Images should be taken in or of caves, or have a strong connection to caves. Images obviously taken in sewers, studios, or outdoors with no caving connection may not be accepted." The 2010 convention medal winner was an excellent photo, but was clearly shot in a mine not a cave.
Perhaps the most relevant criteria is that any shot submitted should be sharply focussed, correctly exposed, and with good color saturation. Composition and creative cropping should draw the eye in to the focal point(s), and hold the attention of the average viewer for a suitable length of time. And so forth. Try not to let all the salon rules and nitpicking details be a deterrent, but think of them as tips for capturing and processing your cave images and ultimately helping improve the quality of your photography.
If you need more info, I'm sure Wm Shrewsbury would be happy to answer any questions. Chairing the print salon is one of the many hats he now wears.
Isn't this fun?