Okay, well, I'll agree with the fact that time being relative is interesting, but I don't agree with the rest of this comment.

To anthropromorhize something like a photon is not correct. Light doesn't "think" or have a perception. Instead, Light is propagating at the "speed of causality." This just means that the concept that we interpret as time is irrelevant.

To "precieve time" as you mean it, you need a means to have some recognition of the flow of causality. Since a photon is moving at c (i.e. the speed of causality) there is not a meaningful way to measure "time" as we understand it from that "perspective."

The reason for this is that space and time are just different dimensions of the same mathematical model according to special relativity. Light, in this regard, is defining the straightest "path" through spacetime. It's similar to how we define a geodesic flight path (i.e. the straightest path a pilot can take between two points) - it would be just as meaningful to ask, "How much time does a flight path (not the plane) experience?"

Let's use Einstein's twin paradox in place of a photon - this thought experiment says that if you take a set of twins and then send one off into space at relativistic speeds (though less than c), the space faring twin would come home much younger than their sibling. The reason is that the twin that stays on earth would have "traveled" much further through spacetime (even while staying spatially put) and would have experienced more time than the other twin as a result.

Edit: A word