This is not so much a new thread as the continuance of a segue from another - preventing me hijacking it for my own selfish purposes. The subject there meandered to the topic of viewfinders vs. LCD screen, from the subject's perspective, are they active or passive? It got me thinking, but before I toss in my 2 cents, here's some background - don't know the best way to present it so I will go with a series of replies from the above referenced thread: What a great dialogue - thanks guys The distinction between the 'active' and 'passive' capturing of the subject, from the subject's perspective, is a very interesting one. I think even more so when you cast in light of the difference between 'making' and 'taking' a photograph. As you talk of the "threat" of a photograph, so you are referring here to the aggressive or active act of 'taking' a image from the subject's perspective. Now one could easily fall into the error of transposing the terms "active" and "passive" with "taking" and "making" an image....and it might be a useful exercise, but then one quickly hits the dichotomy between what the subject perceives as the intent of photographer and the actual intent of the photographer; is s/he, alternately am I, 'making' or 'taking' an image? Street photography is an interesting one here as it does often rely on documenting life as accurately as possible, so attempts to be as non-interventionist as possible - i.e., capturing subjects in their natural state. Otherwise if a subject realises they are being photographed and begin 'posing' - even by very virtue of knowing they are being photographed and projecting how they would like to be perceived by - for the camera then the spirit and intent of the image changes. But contentiously I here believe that the genre now also changes from 'street' to 'portraiture'. So let's stick to the context of street photography and be clear on my premise is that it is, by its very virtue, an active/aggressive act of "taking" a photograph. A photographer composing their frame on an LCD or through the viewfinder remains an active act either way. They are taking a photo through whichever means best suits them. Now let's arrive to that decisive moment - not when the shutter clicks but when the bubble bursts and the photographer is 'busted' or discovered by the subject. What then? Ah and I think herein lies the rub. Some might argue, and I am one of them, that the subject upon seeing a face hidden behind a viewfinder realises that I am taking their photo. What I do from that moment on is up to me...and we all have our tricks here including "yeah and so what?". It is an honest portrayal of that active process. Whereas, if the subject sees through the subterfuge and discovers that they are being assessed by someone staring perpendicular to their camera. The reaction is the same. You are making much the same excuses as the photog busted through the viewfinder. But, and I think we hit the essence of it here, ground-glass shooters are preying on the fact that folks don't equate looking perpendicular down at a camera with having their photo taken. Granted your chances of being busted are lessened, as subjects are not yet conditioned to equate another human's lack of eye contact - i.e., looking down - with the threat - in this case of being photographed. So really this is a little sneaky, and far less 'honest'. The subject here has been doubly betrayed. Finally, some might argue, "well, no, the LCD/ground-glass ensures that I participate better in the moment...as, the camera is more passive, and my face is not interrupted from the subject". Here you rely on the camera being more passive not the photographer! To think otherwise is pure folly. Even from our ape days, the best way to communicate with a fellow ape - immediate to you - is to make understood grunting noises while looking them in the eyes. Tell me which is more genuine, saying "I love you" while looking in the eyes of your beloved or uttering the same words by looking perpendicular at their feet? OK, so in photography I might have one eye hidden behind the camera while only one is trained on the object of my affection - so does my message lose any impact with one eye obscured by a rose? Or even if I have one eye closed and the other trained unblinkingly on my subject through the viewfinder, the subject knows my vision is trained on them. "Ah, but with the ground-glass I have both eyes on the subject only glancing down momentarily to check composition". Yes and at the moment you look down you are breaking contact with the subject. I'd prefer one eye trained on me through the whole delivery of an "I love you", rather than two eyes at "I love" and eyes down at "you". To me I don't care of you choose to use a viewfinder, right-angle finder, LCD arms out, LCD eyes-down, ground glass draped with a black cloth or even shoot from the hip (another argument entirely). But to me its about being honest with your subject and, as importantly, with yourself.