We are defined as people by our reality. For some people reality is objective, they accept their surroundings at face value, and for some reality is subjective, for them objective reality is filtered through the value system. People are extraverted or introverted, not in the sense of liking or disliking people, but depending on how they relate to external stimulus.

So if you want to argue about reality, perhaps you should be talking about objective reality and subjective reality. I supose the pure sciences are objective and the social sciences, such as history and dare I mention it, art, are subjective. I maintain that photography is inherently subjective. It is interpretive. The operators of the instrument are not capable of producing objectivly repeatable results (the whole point of it is to not produce objectivly repeatable photographs). Photography is not the same as doing a titration in a lab. Photography is not sensiometry. Sensiometry is objective, photography is not. Even forensic photography is interpretive. Picking up a camera is not the same as operating a MRI machine.

Just for interest, are the photographs made by Hubble subjective or objective? I would expect the humans on Earth are pointing the cameras and processing the image data into something viewable.