I started his thread as I felt that it really was a pity that, at a time when film seems to be experiencing a small (perhaps temporary) renaissance, a newspaper as good as The Guardian would expressly ignore it.
Reading through the responses, I find it equally as much a pity (saddening, disappointing) that it has been taken as another opportunity to rehearse very tired "digital vs film" tirades.
Even more saddening and disappointing is that, once again, the very people who are perhaps partially responsible for that little renaissance are derided with scorn and contempt as "hipsters" and "art school graduates". Very inclusive.
The "argument" that "digital is not photography", by the way, commits the basic fallacy of arguing from a particular to a universal, let alone that of assuming the truth of it's conclusion in the initial premiss.
Recently I saw APUG referred to as an "angry, aging,mostly testosterone-fed film group" ... by someone who is enthusiastic about using film.
If you want film (and APUG) to survive, it will not be achieved by practising a form of cultural apartheid, nor by sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "I can't hear you" at the digital world. If you offer rejection rather than acceptance, do not be surprised you are ignored and rejected. Contempt invites contempt.
APUG is an enormous reservoir of the most valuable skill, knowledge and experience about film. If that reservoir is not tapped and fed to others, APUG will be it's graveyard, rather than it's Academy
Last edited by pdeeh; 11-19-2012 at 04:35 AM. Click to view previous post history.