I don't know how the above made me recall a post from a couple years back, it wasn't anything of significance but for one reason or other, the content stuck in the back of my mind. I also thought the post was yours, so I checked. Yup:
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/57954693
Shooting from behind, that's
usually but not
always a sign of timidness; you stated you do it
usually because you're shy. Shooting from behind is essentially one form of "hiding" the camera from the subject... one of the most effortless ways, actually.
Candid subjects and onlookers have the moral right to grab the creep's camera and inadvertently "drop" it onto a hard "street" floor. Highly advisable and enjoyable!
So then... has it happened to you yet? Having someone taking and smashing your camera?
I never hide my camera from the subject. As you can imagine (but choose not to), when you are behind your subject they are not aware that you are there.
In other words, you and your camera are "hiding".
It is very clear to onlookers if the photographer is purposely hiding the camera, which typically happens when the subject would otherwise see it. I am confident that you realize the distinctions but you are trying to create a specious argument.
No, I disagree. Raising a camera to your eye or lowering it to waist-level, to get that shot from behind, is very much an action no one around you would notice. There are no "onlookers" who realize exactly what you're doing, for all most anyone cares, you're aiming at something in the distance; moreover, if someone does happen to be on to you, they won't care, it's not them you're pointing your lens at. Shooting from behind is about as "sneaky" as it gets.
I realized over time, and observed in others' photography as well, that almost every shot from behind in Street is mediocre and lacking in interest compared to shots from the front (feel free to do some more impressive forensic research to find the obvious exceptions).
Depends who's photos you're looking at, I suppose. Many inexperienced guys out there do a LOT of shots from behind and yes, the quality (or lack of) shows in the result as the images convey literally no intent. There are, however, plenty of brilliantly done "from behind" images, sadly the sheer amount of the mediocre stuff drowns much of those out, more sadly it's viewers as well who can't be bothered to understand the difference.
For a while now, I have followed a rule to avoid shooting Street subjects from the back,
IMO it's a good rule to follow, however don't be so strict about it as to miss an occasional opportunity where such a photo is worth taking.
and for that reason. It is more challenging to be where they can and could see you and where you can capture their expressions. More challenging, but ultimately more satisfying.
Of course it's more challenging, but more satisfying? No, not to me anyway. I don't shoot street to pat myself on the back for being too clever to be noticed, I shoot street because it's fun and addicting to chase those elusive one-off moments... some are tricky and risky, some are straightforward and easy. Ultimately the satisfaction should be in obtaining a meaningful image... including occasionally of someone's back
. I would also argue that capturing expressions, while requiring great timing, is not as satisfying or as capturing sublime body language.... also requiring great timing (and sometimes is conveyed very effectively from behind).
I am not trying to get into some superficial argument, the point I'm trying to make is simply that street photography generally involves a form of "hiding" (blending into a crowd intending to take pictures, but not being obvious about it... you may not be "hiding" your camera but you certainly are "hiding" your intent) and I don't think it's exactly fair for someone to say a certain timid approach is camera-smashing-worthy while another equally timid approach is not.
