That's because those two publications (and others) exist to sell advertising and product reviews. They are hardly textbooks or historical documents.
Originally Posted by David Lyga
Yes. We had similar discussion back when there were only 30K, 40K, or 50K "members". The 63K+ number only means that number of individuals visited the site once and signed up. At any given time, there are probably only a couple of hundred folks who are actually active on the board. A few years ago, when we could access the member list, I did an analysis to see how many "members" had only ever posted once, or not at all. I don't remember the exact numbers, but it was significantly high!
Originally Posted by JBrunner
All of the local photographers that I "met" through apug years ago, and still know and see, have for the most part stopped posting.* This is not a complaint, just an observation and statement of the situation. On the plus side, even though I can name dozens who have come and gone (and there are probably 1000's worldwide) almost all of these folks still shoot film, they just ran their course on apug.
My point is: we probably cannot accurately gauge the health of chemical photography based on apug. We wish we could, and this sort of discussion comes up periodically, but I don't think it will ever hold up statistically.
* just a couple of weeks ago, I was with a group of 11 local photographers, and when I mentioned apug, one remarked that I had really "stuck it out" here.
Last edited by David Brown; 03-30-2013 at 03:56 PM. Click to view previous post history.