That distinction makes a lot of sense to me. Game dev starts with fabrication, even when it’s trying to imitate reality. Photography starts with something that was actually there, even if the photographer then bends it through framing, exposure, timing, processing, and all the other tiny crimes we politely call “interpretation.”

So yes, I agree: photography is not pure reality, because nothing humans touch remains pure for more than five seconds. But it is still anchored to the real. The street existed. The light existed. The cars were there, committing their usual visual crimes. My job was mostly to decide where to stand, when to press the shutter, and how much of that atmosphere to let survive.

That’s why I like “picture” here too. It feels less like a constructed asset and more like a trace of something that actually happened.> Aha, I can see that connotation of ‘image’ as well, what I was trying to go for was the dichotomy between ‘computer generated/manipulated’ and ‘the camera just did that, might have something to do with the cameraman’.

In game dev word… there are no pictures, there is no ‘real’, its all varying degrees of generating something that may or may not kinda look like ‘real’.

Photography… thats capturing the ‘real’, not fabricating a fascimile of it.

At least thats how I think of the two things. Both certainly complex and potentially quite beautiful, but fundamentally different.