Not really. From the wikipedia page on eidetic memory [1]:
```
Although the terms eidetic memory and photographic memory are popularly used interchangeably,[1] they are also distinguished, with eidetic memory referring to the ability to view memories like photographs for a few minutes,[3] and photographic memory referring to the ability to recall pages of text or numbers, or similar, in great detail.[4][5] When the concepts are distinguished, eidetic memory is reported to occur in a small number of children and as something generally not found in adults,[2][6] while true photographic memory has never been demonstrated to exist.
```
I've always wondered about that, because a few savants like Kim Peek are/were able to recall everything they read.
"He could speed through a book in about an hour and remember almost everything he had read, memorizing vast amounts of information in subjects ranging from history and literature, geography and numbers to sports, music and dates. Peek read by scanning the left page with his left eye, then the right page with his right eye. According to an article in The Times newspaper, he could accurately recall the contents of at least 12,000 books."
I think the test case (which nobody has passed) for true photographic memory is: you are given an image of a bunch of random dots with no apparent structure, then you are given a second such image, and you have to mentally combine them and say what image they form. Because if you superimpose the two images of random dots — say using transparent slides, one on top of the other —- they actually form a photograph of Marilyn Monroe or something, but each image in isolation looks totally random.
If someone had photographic memory then they could do this superimposition in their memory, but it doesn’t seem like anybody can.
I don't know if I agree that it's a good test. If I had two images in front of me of random dots, I cannot superimpose them and see a picture of Marilyn Monroe, no matter how long I can look at them. (ah, actually I could go cross-eyed to make them overlap in my field of vision, but I can't do it mentally).
I could imagine a "spot the difference" type of test would be a good one though. The fields of random dots are identical save for one dot, and you have say where it is. Something like that.
Right, the point of the test is that you can't do it unless you can (relatively quickly) memorize what looks like a random picture of noise. With true photographic memory, that should be possible.
I still don't agree - I'm saying that even if I don't have to remember the field of random dots, even if it's right in front of me, I still can't see an image of Marilyn Monroe. Being able to remember it wouldn't help. If being able to remember it wouldn't help me pass the test, then the test will have a high false-negative rate, and is not a good test of memory.
