I am just starting to work on the Project A which is about establishing a workflow. It' s interesting that 'workflow' as a term only emerged in the 80s. It was first used in the software industry when Ted Smith and Ed Miller, the founders of FileNet, created a business process automation software which was named "WorkFlo".
The term is now used much more widely across different fields to describe management, administrative and other processes. The Oxford Dictionary defines workflow as "the sequence of ...processes through which a piece of work passes from initiation to completion" (http://oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_gb0960040#m_en_gb0960040).
It's quite likely that 'workflow' was first used in photography to describe digital photographic process. The OCA course manual comments that "there are now far more steps in getting from the point of shooting to the final print or web gallery that there ever were even in film photography". This is an interesting point. Are there really more steps in digital image creation and development than in film photography? Whilst I agree that the digital process offers more control and choice to an individual photographer, it does not necessarily increase the number of steps. If we compare both processes step by step, it's clear that most of the film development and darkroom processes have been significantly altered. The digital workflow is faster and cheaper, but the number of steps that I have to take when shooting on 5X4 black and white film seems to be greater than when using my digital camera. This is assuming we are still looking at the entire process from "the point of shooting to the final print" - if any external photographic services are used, the process would again be different.
Film photography not only uses different processes (chemical and mechanical), it also calls for a special kind of discipline and mindfulness - partly because of the number of steps involved in creating and developing each individual image!
