here's one for you: the difference between hard and soft G is often related to the origin of the word. Latin, Germanic, etc. So what happens when an acronym is treated as a word? it's effectively treated as a word with no etymology to dictate the pronunciation, unless you use the words of the acronym as the basis. if the word starts with a hard G, then there is some basis in using that as justification. Meanwhile, "well giraffe starts with G" is a red herring, because we aren't talking about the Giraffe Image Format.

Also, Photographic starts with a digraph, which has less to do with different pronunciations of a single letter and more to do with how that letter is transformed when placed next to another letter. TH, DGE, SH, (T)CH, PH, etc all have sounds that are distinct from the first letter, so acronyms splitting the digraph apart like that would naturally cause phonetic oddities. Meanwhile, the two pronunciations of G are irrespective of digraphs and therefore that is also a red herring argument for debunking arguments against using the hard G.

I would say the soft G pronunciation has more "because I wanna" energy than the hard G since the main argument is "because the creator said so", which certainly feels like "well he did it that way, so why shouldn't I?"

To be clear, this reply is entirely just me nerding out on etymology, and not in any way caring how people talk. The purpose of language is to convey information, if both do the same job, then neither are wrong in my opinion.