A valid point again, Nick. And I totally get that you're not being critical of the exercise itself.
I hate to drag out that oh-so-overused phrase, but "it is what it is".
It's not the equivalent of a Best Bowie award at a knife show - the biggest difference being the most obvious - we are seeing the photos, not handling the knives themselves.
As I mentioned at the outset of the originating thread - the main purpose of these annual threads is to capture a comprehensive representation of the "state of the bowie" in a given year. Kind of like expanding the bowie section of the Knives annual to span the entire edition.

It's fun, it's a lot of eye candy and it's interesting to hear what people like and why. It's also a free focus group for bowie makers - something more than a few have caught on to.
The more makers that participate, the more opportunity there is for collectors to learn as well. The comments made by yourself, Burt and others about the relative complexity / difficulty / challenges presented by the various knives is all really good stuff. If we didn't pick a winner, the mission would be accomplished. Whether we
should pick a winner is something that was hashed out last year and resolved in favour of doing so. Personally, I think it is the difficult process of voting - particularly the selection of finlasts - that forces people to think about and articulate why particular knives appeal to them.
With all that said, you are correct that some very excellent knives are placed at a disadvantage if they are presented in average (or below) photographs. One more reason for collectors and makers alike to either brush up on their photography skills, or make sure that at least their top pieces receive the photographic attention of a professional.
Roger