My attempt at a taxonomy, after hearing Ade's Fuji-Fuji-Epson-Mac workflow brought up again (and him teased about it, naturally). Pure analog: silver-based film in a camera -> film developing -> contact or enlarger print onto silver-based photo paper -> paper developing -> showing people your picture instant film in a camera -> self developing -> showing people your picture other similar processes (slide film, direct positive paper, wet plate collodion, Daguerreotype, etc.) Pure digital: digital camera -> some sort of computer -> showing people your picture Somewhere in between: everything else IMO, if you scan your film negatives (or slides or prints) or rephotograph them with a digital camera, then you're into a hybrid workflow. But if you don't do that, you can only show people who you meet in person, and how boring is that? Likewise if you take your digital image and print it, either with an inkjet or a photo paper printer, you've made an analog copy. But if you don't do that you have nothing tangible to hand to someone or hang on your wall. I don't see any sensible way to sort the various workflows into 'more analog' and 'more digital' because there's no way to score or balance the different parts. And you know what? It's all good as long as we're happy with the results.