#828. Loving the smartphone more and more.

By pascaljappy | Opinion

Mar 06

The digitalisation benefits of smartphones have been covered often enough in my posts not to warrant going deep into them again. Always-with-you pocket convenience is great. Superb performance in appropriate conditions, also. But knowing your pics are being backed-up and organised as you shoot may be the most satisfying of the lot. So much so that I once again can’t help feeling camera makers have completely lost the plot. Which they have.

 
 

But this post is about non functional aspects of using a smartphone for photography. It’s more about the process, more about the flow.

 

Art is a refection of our integration in the world. It has a dual nature.

 

On the one side, art is essentially relational. It doesn’t have meaning until we show it to someone else. We can’t express to others what we see, feel and think without sharing our photographs, paintings, musical compositions, videos, installations, pottery, knitting … with the world. Without that, they are just trees falling in an empty forest.

 

On the other, it is deeply personal. We create, first and foremost, for ourselves. Creating heals. Creating elates. Creating empowers. Everyone alive needs to create for him/herself, however hard our schooling system, our over-inflated rationalism, our social media, our … try to hide the fact.

 
 

Our gear can, and probably should, reflect that dichotomy.

 

And I feel recent smartphones have become the ultimate relational art tools, at least for photography. Not just because they make sharing far easier than traditional cameras do. But because they are so ubiquitous they also let us blend in, get closer and more in tune with others. And so intuitive that they allow our ideas to shoot out freely, unhampered by the ergonomic gulags some digital cameras have become.

 

As a personal project that’s been at the back of my head for a long time, I’m working on visual Haiku. Photographs with very little information that try to communicate a feeling or a thought more than a situation or an action. They can be busy, they can be empty, but they need utmost clarity because the subject itself feels almost meaningless. A phone might work for such a project, but not as well as a dedicated camera with higher image quality and more post-processing leeway.

 
Entropy and sand.
Past dwells alongside current,
renovated births.
Lonely carriers,
huddling between three deserts,
light, colour fading.
 

For this, I can take my time, select, cherry pick. It’s a process, albeit a intuitive one. My X1D is fabulous for that. And the lower convenience of that camera has made my phone all the more complementary and desirable.

 

You don’t blend in with a camera in your hands. You can’t shake hands, wave, greet, … To your subject, you’re not a human being with that huge outgrowth on your chest and hip/back, you’re a photographer. That creates a barrier, a distance that the ubiquitous phone doesn’t.

 

But even more important than automatic backup and stealth is the shooting style the phone allows. The phone is wysiwyg and instant. It captures exactly what stirred you, making the sharing all the more instinctive and natural. If it could spit out a tiny print, it would be a worthy Polaroid successor. I love that the size of my phone screen, at a distance of about 12″ is absolutely perfect for framing instantly. I see/feel something and nothing else available transforms that into an image quite as directly. The phone removes all obstacles from the shooting process. It’s images are closer to my brain’s interpretation of a scene than anything else on offer. There’s a direct line between my neurons and its pixels. Compact cameras are every bit as small and inconspicuous, but they are slow and have tiny screens that break the vital imaging line for me.

 
 

You could argue that real photographers would have been at this scene, tripod at the ready, milking the sunset to its last drop. But that’s not true. It’s a fallacy peddled by workshop merchants. The fact is tripod man wouldn’t have been there because :

(1) this was a fast moving moment (running for a bus)

(2) it was located in a grubby marina along a busy road with no pavement or easy transport. No one would have deliberately sought out this place.

That’s not to say the tripod / golden hour photography has nothing left to offer. But I always make tons more interesting photos by being constantly on the move than by sticking to a single spot hoping for something great to happen, HCB style (he had far more time to do so than me). And the smartphone is an essential component of this personal, nimble approach.

 
 

Also, there are times when a good photographs simply isn’t possible. Because of cars, tourists, light, danger, precipitation … Does that mean we shouldn’t take notes, if only to practise composition or PP? The phone’s “innocence” lets you try things you would feel unworthy of your real camera. So you learn a lot more quickly. It is both cheaper (in time and storage measurement) than the traditional camera, so lets you experiment a lot more. It also removes social pressure and expectancy.

 
 

Finally, I just love the rendering from a tiny sensor *when the conditions are right*. In absolute, physics, sense, bigger is definitely better. In aesthetic terms, however, I find that every sensor size has its own rendering. And using a really small one, alongside the biggest my budget can afford, effectively gives me two very different looks. Sure, the envelope of good behaviour of the phone is much smaller and anything too harsh or made in low light really looks ugly. But, in the right conditions, there’s a clarity (in small photographs) that’s really difficult to recreate with larger sensors.

 
 

Now, that’s not to imply everyone should follow this path. I envy and admire those who can achieve everything with a single camera (which somehow seems the case of many users of “smaller” sensor cameras). And even if you did want two cameras, the “smaller” one might not be a phone. To each his own.

 
 

This post is merely an observation that, as my dedicated system steers further away from the spontaneous type of shooting that has always been mine, and takes me to a more meditative operational mode, my phone is becoming the indispensible notebook and immediate tool that constantly provides instant joy, instant sharing and will keep me away from the jail of intellectual wank-groups that place ideas above all else. For me, the question isn’t “will my phone survive my Hassy?”, but “will my Hassy survive my phone?”

Of course, feel free to disagree πŸ˜€ But let me know if you too have a dual level approach to photography and what you use to quench that double thirst.

 
Email: subscribed: 4
  • Jeff Kott says:

    If only I could get decent skin tones out of my iPhone XS…..

    • pascaljappy says:

      Hmm, same here with the Galaxy S9. Great white balance in general, but never really brilliant on skin. Not sure whether that’s where the industry is going either. It seems that low light is where the technology is being focused. Ah well …

  • jean pierre (pete) guaron says:

    Pascal, my instant mental response was “I don’t understand why you feel it is necessary to keep promoting the use of cellphones, to take photos!”

    They account for around 99% of all the photos being taken, according to one source.

    The impact of the use of cellphones on the photographic industry generally can only be described as catastrophic.

    What anyone chooses to use to take a photo is a purely personal choice.

    Just as digital virtually killed off the analogue/film industry, it is entirely possible cellphones will have the same effect on photography.

    But hang on – WILL they? You can look at analogue again, for part of the answer – it’s sweeping back, just as we chatter about other things. I told you only a couple of weeks ago that I went into one of my favourite camera shops, in this remote outpost of civilisation, the most remote capital city in the world, only to find the counter literally covered in boxes of Ilford 400ASA 35mm film. Some enthusiasts are going further and even making collodion wet plate negatives.

    But what I think is seriously likely is that there will be a diehard group who persist in using cameras – both DSLRs and mirrorless – and also, now, SLRs.

    And a diehard group that prints “photo_graphs”.

    And “photo_graphy” will survive, despite the plague.

    Not just because people like me refuse to die and refuse to be told what they should do.

    YOUNG people, people in their 20s and 30s, people in their 40s and 50s, are turning up whenever there’s a photo group doing a shoot.

    And they appear out of the woodwork, whenever I find myself in a location that you might expect to be flooded with cellphones and selfie sticks.

    Because humans are like that. They are diverse. They will NOT all do the same thing. It wouldn’t matter WHAT they shove into cellphones. It won’t change the entirety of human behaviour. Just when they think they’ve won, they are the ones who are going to find they’ve lost.

    There could well be casualties among the traditional photography companies, just as Kodak fell from the industry. I hope not. But already they are facing massive falls in sales, and have started “rationalising”. Yet even so, there are interesting new products, all over the place.

    It’s nowhere near the stage of the Black Knight – or that idiotic head, still refusing to give up even after all his arms and legs were chopped off, as well as his body.

    • pascaljappy says:

      Ah well, I keep finding new uses and new love for my phone. I’m merely reporting it πŸ˜‰ 99% of all photos? It wouldn’t surprise me, as they are in almost every pocket.

      I don’t think phones have made people worse photographers, they have merely empowered bad photographers (or, rather, people who don’t care about good photography) to record memories.

      The drop in sales simply is the result of manufacturers being austoundingly obtuse about ergonomics and fun. Using their cameras is no longer fun or even pleasant. Casual photographers simply look elsewhere.

  • John W says:

    Funny you should raise two topics in this post that have connections for me.

    I first came across the concept of the “Visual Haiku” 15 years ago in Miksang, a photographic discipline based in Buddhist principles. Miksang is ostensibly all about “learning to see”, but in fact is really about learning how YOU see as a photographer. One of the concepts in Miksang is the Visual Haiku. I may have accidentally come close on occasion, but I’m still trying to capture one.

    The other is the cellphone experience. I went through a period some years ago where the cell phone was my camera of choice. It has a unique way of “seeing” that had me enthralled for a while and I got several images I’m rather proud of. Somehow, somewhen it seems to have slipped into the background and gets little love these days except as a record keeper when the circumstances dictate. Hmmm …. maybe I should dust it off …

    BTW – is is possible to upload images with the comments?

    • pascaljappy says:

      Oh John, please don’t open up a new door for me to walk through and get lost for weeks. Miksang … I resisted the temptation once and had forgotten all about that? Uh … πŸ˜‰

      Visual Haikus. I don’t know the real definition for them and didn’t even know they were a thing. But the idea of making “bare essentials” photographs really appeals to me. It’s easy to find very beautiful photographs of utmost simplicity. Michael Kenna is exceptionally good at those. I am trying to explore something slightly different. The photograph can be crowded or very bare, but it has to communicate a very tenuous idea. I don’t even know how to explain it πŸ˜€ But, sometimes you get a feeling when looking at something. It’s not about what you are seeing but about how you feel, what it evokes.

      It’s not possible to upload images directly to comments, no. Sorry. But you can send some to me via email and I can add them to your comment via the back office. Feel free to do so πŸ™‚

      • John W says:

        For learning how you see as a photographer, Miksang is about the best tool I’ve found and its is a good LEARNING discipline. But it has its joys and its annoyances. One of the basic principles is colour only, no flash and no tripod. RULES!!!!! Another annoyance is that if you shoot solely with Miksang principles your images eventually acquire a “sameness” about them … not just a style, but a visual “sameness”.

        Once you’ve mastered the principles throw away the RULES and just shoot what you like the way you like.

        I’ll send you some images in the dropbox.

  • jean pierre (pete) guaron says:

    And no I won’t shut up.

    When I go out, I almost invariably take a camera with me. For a reason.

    1 – So I never get caught without a camera. Been there, done that, have the scars on my back to prove it.
    2 – I choose which one, before I go. The S9700 might be as pocketable as your cellphone Pascal, but the format is 4/3 and the others are 3/2 (unless I dial up something different in one or two of them). Both it and the PowerShot are “instant gratification” (unless I change the settings), which is handy if I am not going out for a more serious shoot. The D500 and D850 are a wonderful pairing, and I wish I’d had them years ago.
    3 – And to be truthful, the cellphone – which does have a camera in it – of sorts – rather rudimentary, but it is there. I am obliged to have the cellphone. It is a condition of my household insurance. I have to be contactable 24/7.

    My poor old cellphone? Well I think I’m telling the truth if I tell you the only time I ever intentionally – instead of accidentally – took a photo with it was as “evidence” – so I could stroll up to the cash register in the supermarket, take advantage of the price displayed on the cheese I wanted to buy, and deny them the opportunity (as they tried to) to go back to the shelf where I’d found it and come back to tell me I was wrong. They nearly choked when I told them I wasn’t – and here’s the photo to prove it – and people all around us listening. That shot was one of the best paying photos I’ve ever taken – so you can relish this, Pascal. I wound up with half a kilo of premium French cheese, worth nearly $50 (I’d only tried to buy half that, but they chucked some more in my shopping bag after this), and all I had to pay was $4.50. The photo was worth over $45, net profit. And no, I never even had to print it!

    And when you go out, you probably always take the cellphone with you. And if you want – a separate camera.

    So you see there’s not much difference. It’s simply down to choice, as I said in the previous comment.

    And I spent 40 years of my life giving clients advance about “choice”. I use to tell them, one and all, that life is “a game of choice and consequence”. That their role was to make the choices. And as their adviser, my role was to tell them the consequences. And point out that if they didn’t like the consequences, perhaps they should make a different choice.

    Played correctly, there is no scope in this game for “difference” or “disagreement”. Every is free to do whatever they like. And enjoy their lives, plus or minus the consequences or their choices.

    Having waffled on interminably, as I am prone to, that simply takes us back to something I believe I said the other day. That we then get together – as we do in this group – and share our “consequences” – in this context, our photo_graphs! ROTFLMHAO πŸ™‚

    • pascaljappy says:

      Philippe is like you, very diligent and always with his camera at hand. Me? Ahem … when I don’t forget the camera, it’s entirely possible the card will be full or the battery empty πŸ˜€

      4:3 format. That matters a lot to me as well. My phone uses that format, as does the X1D. It feels more relaxed than 3:2 to me.

      Cool story about the cheese πŸ˜‰

  • Cliff Whittaker says:

    This comment is going to date me so I’ll go ahead and admit it, I’m a dinosaur. All these comments about small, handy cameras requiring very little thought to record an image brings back memories of the Kodak 110 Instamatic.
    For the benefit of our younger audience, the 110 format was a tiny little film square so small that it had almost universal depth of field. Much like your cell phone.
    The Instamatic camera was little more than a small cardboard box (or plastic box if you wanted to go upscale) with a plastic lens permanently set at about 5.6. The cardboard box came preloaded with film. The plastic camera body would accept a tiny little plastic cassette of film that you purchased separately.
    The camera required only that you look through the viewfinder, push the shutter release button and advance the film. And that was it.
    In the right circumstances these things were capable of making some very good images. I remember a friend making a 16×20-inch enlargement from one that was really good from normal viewing distance on the wall. But usually an 8×10-inch enlargement was really pushing its limits.
    When all of the film had been exposed you took the Instamatic to your favorite drugstore or other film developer and filled out information on an envelope, dropped the film cassette or the cardboard camera inside the envelope, and came back later to pick up your pictures and negatives and another cassette of film or, if you had the cardboard camera, another preloaded camera.
    These things were really popular and made up the bread and butter of most film processing businesses. They popped the film in one side of the processing machine and the pictures and negatives came out the other side and went back into the envelope to await customer pickup. Pure profit for the business.
    There are probably still millions of these little Instamatic pictures tucked away in family albums all over the world. And people still bring them out at reunions to remind themselves of relatives and friends who are long gone. “Oh there’s our vacation at Myrtle Beach in 1956. Look how clear it is.”
    Don’t think anyone will ever be able to make that statement about the billions of pictures made on cell phones. They might be “clear” but they will never stand the test of time that film has. Nobody prints anymore and photographic memories of entire generations will be lost.

    • pascaljappy says:

      Very interesting, Cliff!

      Many would say that the limited shooting conditions in which the phone/Kodak 110 can be used to best effect is a nuisance. To me, it is a strong point in favour of those cameras. When you use them often enough, you learn how to recognise those conditions and can predictably create beautiful looking photographs. Other cameras will have a wider envelope but still hit limits. Limits which we are not always well trained to recognise. So some photographers will stick to golden hour or other such well-defined scenarios. Others will end up with ugly photographs because the light didn’t match the vision.

      I think it’s a very similar phenomenon that makes us “use” our old film photographs more than modern cellphone ones. The convenience (auto backup, etc) means we can just shoot all day long and a photo is no longer a special occasion. Only when we take care making it, processing it and printing it do we devote the time and effort to give it life.

      Nothing’s changed, then πŸ˜‰

      • jean pierre (pete) guaron says:

        I wouldn’t exactly say “Nothing’s change . . . “! πŸ™‚
        I do take your point – we can shoot all day (and all night), and a photo is no longer a special occasion. But we can still take care making it, processing it and printing it. And we have options all the way along the line that were not available before, during analogue days.
        Preview is one blessing – yes it’s crappy to take several shots, to “get it right” – shoulda been right first up, right? – but if you’re never going to be able to repeat the shot later, it’s a bloody sight better than losing the opportunity, or going home with a lousy shot.
        “Post” is a gift from heaven! I enjoyed my time in the not-quite-but-almost-darkroom, with poor ventilation and strange chemical smells. Learning to dodge and burn. On occasions, tilting the plate that held the printing paper, to correct the verticals. Watching the paper in the developer tray, as the image appeared before my eyes – I never ceased to be amazed by that, to enjoy the moment! But now – I can do all that and more – I don’t need a whole room full of gear, I don’t need to commandeer the bathtub to wash my prints, or the lounge room floor to dry them. I don’t even need to turn this “machine” on, it’s left on permanently – just press the on/off button on the print monitor screen!
        And I don’t need my “ring light” with a built in magnifier, and a bunch of paints and a ultra fine water colour brush that’s had a few hairs removed to make it even finer, to touch out spots left behind (despite an extra chemical bath with a wetting agent, to prevent them forming) by tiny air bubbles that left little white spots on the print, where the developer failed me.
        And for the first time in my life, I can “post” colour shots – from “negative” through to “print”!
        Which rounds out my lifetime of experience with photography, beautifully.
        But I’m with you, Cliff. It was also magic back in those days. My “Kodak Instamatic” was a second hand Kodak Box Brownie, as I’ve mentioned before. I still remember the first photo I ever took – which I took with that camera, within minutes of unwrapping my present (they gave it to me on my 10th birthday). And I had so much fun with it over the following 5 years or so, till I bought myself a second hand Voigtlander Bessa II, followed by a Zeiss Super Ikonta, followed by my first SLR. That Box Brownie captured a whole heap of treasured memories, and although not “tack sharp” the images were pretty much always “up to a standard” – in all honesty, I cannot suggest they were crappy – not ever! Side by side with today’s images, you might think they were “not as good as” – but they weren’t taken today, so that’s irrelevant – for their time, they weren’t bad at all.:)
        And the Box Brownie, like the Instamatic, had one thing we don’t usually have now** – it was so simple to operate that it freed you up to concentrate on “taking a better photo”. Instead of fiddling around with all the controls on our modern cameras, you just had to push one button – or at most, move a small lever as well.
        ** ignoring people who leave their “modern camera” on “auto everything”, of course – which nobody on DearSusan would ever DREAM of doing! πŸ™‚

    • John W says:

      Fear not my friend, there at least one other fossil that’s escaped the museum … so far. In the late 60/early 70, back before the beginning of time, I managed camera stores for local chain. I remember 110 cameras well. A couple of manufacturers tried to make something better than the plastic boxes with real metal and real glass lenses, but the effort was a fool’s errand. The cheap plastic cartridge simply couldn’t provide consistently accurate registration at the film plane to make such cameras worth the money.

      Wet chemistry photography is on its way back with a vengance. I have a couple of friends who teach wet chemistry at a local collage. When they started three years ago they had a handful of students now there are waiting lists to get into their classes and the demand just keeps growing. To these kids the darkroom is a universe beyond their imagining.

  • Kim Howe says:

    The sun was just setting as our photography club finished a few days ago. We all crossed the road to look at the spectacular sunset with heavy clouds over the mountains painted gold by the waning sun. Two of us quickly whipped out the smart phones and after a few seconds of composing, collected the shot. Within thirty seconds it was gone. Photography is sometimes about being in the right place at the right time, and having a camera to hand.

    There are things I really dislike about smartphone photography. I just don’t like the ergonomics of holding this thing up out from my face and peering at the screen. I think I fell in love with photography looking through the lens of a SLR film camera. That feel is still there looking at the EVF on my Sony A99II, but the phone just doesn’t do the same thing for me. The main other problem has been remedied somewhat – I don’t particularly like to shoot “mild wide” angles – which for years were the staple of smartphones. The newer phones with a second 50mm equivalent lens are a big step forward for me.

    If I have an hour or two to spare and would like to spend it on some photography, I’ll be taking the Sony. The phone will be relegated to providing GPS data. But if something shows up and I haven’t got the Sony in my hands, the phone is there.

    • pascaljappy says:

      Hi Kim, yes, the phone can often be that camera that’s there just at the right moment, when it takes too long to get the main gear out of the bag.

      Ergonomics are very personal, I guess. The screen doesn’t bother me, as it’s bright and large. But what does is that fake”button” you are suppose to press and that (on my Galaxy S9) refuses to operate easily with a finger of the same hand holding the phone. It has to be a two hand operation, which can be difficult when you’re carrying gear in the other. Minor gripe, but still …

      Are you able to sync your phone’s GPS data with your Sony camera easily? That’s neat and not something I know how to do with my A7r2.

      Cheers.

  • David Mack says:

    At 73 I can relate to all the above comments. In spite of the literal billions of photos on some form of digital media per year, very little is actually being printed and as stated above, will ultimately will be lost due to media upgrades, failing links to older methodologies. Winess the demise of the floppy. How many of you transferred images from those early dig cameras to updated media??

    The advance of the phone camera was recently demonstrated by a friend asking me to print a portrait of her grandson taken on an I-phone at least 2 years old. I promised to try. Not only that, I actually was able printed a very nice canvas per her request at about 12×18 inches with Lightroom. Who would have thought that possible 5 years ago.

    • pascaljappy says:

      Isn’t it ironic that paper is the best archival process ?! I lost **all** of my children’s childhood photographs to CD-ROM failure. Thank you Memorex for the lost memories.

      • jean pierre (pete) guaron says:

        After my last trip, my doctor couldn’t understand how anyone could possibly lose weight, in France. I pointed out to him that food in France is better quality – the French are nuts about their food – but he still shook his head.

  • NMc says:

    Pascal
    Due to oldfartingtons disease I now need reading glasses, I have had them over a year and am still not used to wearing them. Holding a phone or camera rear screen at 30cm for a semi braced hold is too close without glasses, I typically need 45cm plus to see the screen properly. I am not interested in larger screen phablet so it is not very good for more considered composition. A compact camera without a rear screen but with and evf that has a dioptre would be very attractive to me. Perhaps 2 one with prime lenses with 50mm and other with 28mm equivalent fields of view and larger sensors for the ultimate pockets-able compact system. Use the phone, tablet or computer screen a with wifi or usb connection for reviewing or uploading if you need it or are desperately vain and reluctant to curate in a considered or timely way.
    Regards

  • brian nicol says:

    I just do not get on with a smart phone for photography. I need a viewfinder. I just got an iphone X Max but the camera will never get used. I prefer my Hasselblad X1D and my Leica QP (Lady Di, refined, elegant, gorgeous- did I say gorgeous?) which I escort everywhere . But if you like it go with it and not care what others think. Cheers, Brian

    • pascaljappy says:

      Don’t tell anyone Brian, but you’ll often find me holding the X1D at arms length for super quick pics (and using the EVF when there’s time for real composition). Ahem …

      Leica QP? Unfortunately never used one. But I’d love to. Leica sure know how to make a camera user feel special.

      Cheers, Pascal

  • Pascal Ravach says:

    Another fascinating topic, Pascal

    Having multiple astigmatism and a half-blind eye (accident when baby, 9 surgeries since…), I can see well *only* in a viewfinder… not on a screen… and not the scene itself!
    A scene that I *discover* often back home, on a large screen, realizing then only what triggered the decision.

    Hence, the “thing” I try to capture the most is *not* the scene, but the “mood”!!
    A near-impossible task… the local “ambience” is defined by… invisible things.
    Conveying them in an image is achieved, rarely, when all the visual elements “suggests” this… but it happens only a few times on thousand captures… and i am not sure not to be the only one to “reconstruct” that “vibration”…
    Sorry fo all the “”… touchy topic πŸ™‚

    I wonder if this could become a topic to discuss for all of us… or an impossibility, one of these purely intellectual concerns πŸ˜€
    We all remember the famous “St-ExupΓ©ry” sentence,
    “β€œAnd now here is my secret, a very simple secret: It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye.”…
    Well, let’s try to apply that to photography πŸ™‚
    Wow…

    • Kristian Wannebo says:

      Aye,
      and not to forget the moment towards the end when they are on their way towards a well:

      “What makes the desert beautiful,” said the little prince, “is that somewhere it hides a well…”

    • pascaljappy says:

      Thank you !

      Yes, ambiance is defined by invisible things and I fond that the most interesting photographs are those that manage to recreate that, almost by magic.

      Putting our heart into photography! Yes please. All of our educations seems devoted to putting our heart in the back seat and our mind in control. Time to travel back ?

      • Kristian Wannebo says:

        Les plus jolies fleurs
        grandissent seulement
        pendant la nuit.

        Si on ne les cherchait pas –

        Après une pluie nocturne,
        les pieds nus dans l’herbe ruissellent,
        seul,
        on peut – peut-Γͺtre
        les sentir.

  • Pascal Ravach says:

    Very beautiful poem, Kristian… thnks !
    On top of smell, it has… touch πŸ™‚

  • Kristian Wannebo says:

    One of our teachers took us around to lots of interesting places – from Saintes-Maries-de-la-Mer to Fondation Maeght – and everywhere he knew a good restaurant!

    • pascaljappy says:

      Ha ha, how typical. My mother couldn’t find here way from the bedroom to the living room without getting lost (me too) but give her a restaurant name and she’ll remember what she ate there, when, who with, how to get there, the weather on the occasion … The French and their food πŸ˜€

  • >