I've never really liked Darold Treffert. The times I've talked with him on AWARES and his books and stuff, I actually get quite frustrated with him. He's supposed to be one of the leading experts and yet he's drawn the field no further really than when he started. He seems to be obsessed with collecting case studies, which is well and great, there's definitely a need for that. But the very fact he's the MAIN person working with savantism I think is a really shame. Ideas about savantism haven't changed much, so I don't give much to that whole 10% of autistics are savants and then the necessary criteria for memory as a savant skill (for anyone who's unaware, a person cannot be called a savant no matter their skill unless an above-average to excellent memory accompanies the other skill).
Anyways, by it's strict criteria, I don't know if I'd be called a savant. I was not an early prodigy in art (Treffert said artists if given the opportunity will usually show their extreme skills by age 9). Granted, I had above average skills emerging at that time, but by no means prodigious. My skill didn't become more readily apparent until high school.
I have an excellent visual memory, not eidetic though, and my skills in art are impressive (drawing, painting, photography). As for whether I'd fulfill the strict Savant criteria, I don't know; probably border region. In a looser sense, I'd say yes I have a savant skill.