Are such isolationist approaches productive? I'm sorry, but my initial thought was simply 'then fewer will see your work and be exposed to what film can do'.

I don't see any value in condemning digital photography. Arguing that it hasn't produced any masterpieces seems as useless as arguing any form of art hasn't produced any. It also dismisses the work of many very talented artist. I imagine painters had similar opinions of photographers in the past. Each is an art form which will find its own following.

Edit: Digital photography and the ability to digitalize images seem to be grouped together. As soon as people had the ability to make an image digital - be it by scanning a print or taking a digital photo - that work was a commodity. The ability to copy work has nothing to do with digital photography vs traditional photography, only with the format to which either can be converted and distributed.