Initially I adopt a binary and simplistic definition that if the photographer is an insider, then the image is a mirror, and if the photographer is an outsider, then the image is a window. I am simplifying the definition to the point that the subject is known or unknown in each case.
Under this typology it becomes rather easy to make a selection. My selection follows:
I have selected these images, but I could easily have selected many others. These images either include me (self-portraits) or they include my wife and children. They are all known to me and in each case, I am an insider.
In the selection above the subjects are unknown to me and I was unknown to them. I was aware why they were there and what they were doing, but I did not share in that experience. I was a fly on the wall and in some they were aware of my presence, but in others I was essentially invisible.
I had no difficulty in making a selection with the simple definition I selected, and I have many other images in my archive that I could have selected just as easily. What if I changed the typology so that mirrors were images that reflected something of me or my interests and windows were all other images? In this case a greater proportion of my archive would be mirrors, and if I take the selection to its extreme, I might find very few images to select as windows. I make this bold statement on the basis that I only take images that interest me and therefore each image reflects some aspect of me.