In her memoir, Sally Mann writes about her memory of the artist Cy Twombly, and how vivid and detailed her memories are, despite not photographing him often. She says "I am convinced that the reason I can remember him so clearly and in such detail is because I have so few pictures of him." She contrasts this with her memories of her father: "Because of the many pictures I have of my father, he eludes me completely. In my outrageously disloyal memory he does not exist in three dimensions, or with associated smells or timbre of voice. He exists as a series of pictures....I don't have a memory of the man; I have a memory of a photograph." In this video she talks about the same thing: The way photographing can affect memory has been studied recently, and the phenomenon of not remembering well what was photographed has been given the name photo-taking-impairment effect. Forget in a Flash: A Further Investigation of the Photo-Taking-Impairment Effect - ScienceDirect The authors of that article believe there is such a phenomenon, and they speculate on the causes of it. It makes me wonder if prior to the popularity of photography if people's memories were somehow better. Could it be that if we want to remember something - a scene or a person - we'd be better off putting down the camera and concentrating more on what our senses are telling us? (I've read that Laura Ingalls Wilder was able to remember scenes from her childhood so well in part because she often verbally described them to her blind sister Mary. That would take a measure of observation and study that may not have occurred if she had been making photographs instead.) I'm curious about your personal experience with this. When you remember places and people and events, are your memories more vivid for those times when you did not photograph them? Do you feel like you remember photographs rather than actual events? Do you suspect that you "offload" your memories to the prosthetic memory of a camera?