...oh look that atom is only finite, so the cosmos must be finite too. Or hey all these atoms are infinite, that means there's other stuff outside our finite universe.
Aha! We have a glimpse of that effervescence that bespeaks a delight in argument for its own sake.
The fact that we are restricted to the 4D of spacetime prevents us from making the sort of observations you suggest. If that were not the case we would all be able to observe, and understand, infinity, so this discussion would be unnecessary.
…a diminished quality means it's not the whole image.
Of course, you are right, but an analogy is not the real thing, and should not be taken too literally. Possibly your "conventional photographic plates" should be regarded in this sense?
I think it's a good idea not to invent new meanings for old terms.
I don’t think I have invented a new meaning for infinity. The Ancient Greeks and Augustine of Hippo, among others, were there centuries ahead of me. It was Cantor who introduced a new way of thinking about infinity when he let mathematicians loose on it. I am not saying that was a bad thing, only that it resulted in a lot of muddled thinking among those who did not distinguish between mathematical infinities and physical infinity.
Perhaps just call it "all embracing" or something else to avoid confusion by people like me.
It is certainly not my intention to cause confusion, but I doubt that replacing “infinity” with “all embracing” would enhance clarity.
