I work in film vfx, and if you think we dont compare our rendered images to real photographs and video constantly, then you dont really know how modern graphics are produced. We shoot reference for everything, and use things like gonioreflectometers to sample real world BSDFs. Yes, lighting models are always necessarily simplified from the real world physics. But the thing is that 99% of the time that doesnt matter, because most common types of surfaces are able to be reproduced accurately enough to fool the majority of people. I would wager that most of the CG things you see these days on TV or in movies you have no idea was CG.. it's only the bad stuff (or obviously impossible) that stands out.
I actually am a bit confused what you are arguing here.. all of these problems you're mentioning have been well-understood by graphics researchers for the past couple decades.
I actually am a bit confused what you are arguing here.. all of these problems you're mentioning have been well-understood by graphics researchers for the past couple decades.