this is causing controvery in that digitally "enhanced" images seem to be winning regularly and those without access to the technology cannot compete.
Well, having access to the latest tools should not be an issue. Do we have a separate Pulitzer for pros and another one for amateurs who can't afford to travel and buy expensive equipment? Should the Indy 500 have a special category for those who can't afford the fastest cars? Maybe a separate Olympics for couch potatoes who have no time or money for years of personal training and monitoring equipment.

I am not being facetious here. The bottom line seems to be that the digital images are winning because they are better photographs. Is the point of your contest to choose the best photograph or to worry about preserving an old technology that has trouble competing?