I think I'd take your statement on the fungibility of photons further to say that the "particle" is more illusory than the "wave".

I tend to think of seeing a particle as somewhat analogous to seeing an eddy in a flow of water*. The water (/electromagnetic field) is the "thing" and the eddy (/photon) is just an observable behaviour of that ground truth.

The wave behaviour of particles can matter for electrons, and atoms, and even surprisingly large molecules! As you look at larger and larger things, though, the downsides of treating them as particles become more and more irrelevant. One major reason for this is that the "wavelength" of a wavicle gets shorter in proportion to its momentum going up.

While a photon of visible light has a momentum in the region of 10^-27 Kg.m.s^-1 and a wavelength in the region of 10^-7 metres, Schrödinger's cat moseying along at walking pace has a momentum in the region of 1 Kg.m.s^-1 and a "wavelength" in the region of 10^-34 metres. That's about 1/1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 the size of an atom - a little smaller than the size of the cat, and squirting a stream of cats through a 10^-34 metre slit would probably give you a somewhat messy version of the classic diffraction pattern (sorry, Tiddles!)

(Note, the numbers in that last paragraph are all essentially to zero significant figures and within the limits of my patience of counting zeros, but with those kinds of numbers, even a couple of orders of magnitude really doesn't make any difference :-P)

* A closer analogy would be waves in water, but eddies are easier to visualise as being distinct entities. To be fair, eddies can exhibit some properties (destroying / combining with each other / splitting) that can be entertainingly analogous to colliding subatomic particles, but probably not in ways that help my use of the analogy :-P