I'm sure you realize this, but that's not a 'mug shot' of an exosome; it's an artist's interpretation of one.
There's a real "battle" in science when it comes to "viruses" vs "exosomes"; some (such as Dr. Cowan) argue that they are one in the same. Therefore, any microscopic picture of a "virus" that you can find could be considered by some to actually be a picture of an exosome. I found a number of images by Google image searching "exosome microscopic images" and compared them to a search for "sars cov 2 microscopic images". Personally, I don't see how the lay person can even tell the difference.
It's also of note here that there are different exosomes that 'communicate' with different types of cells. So not all exosomes will look the same; they'll be different shapes, sizes, have different attachment proteins, etc. But (of course) the same can be said for viruses. What we're talking about with regard to COVID is an exosome found in the lung tissue that has all the same characteristics as what's being called the "SARS-CoV-2 virus".
Adding to some of the confusion is the term "exosome" describes the vesicle when it's in the extra-cellular space, or outside of the cell; but when it's inside the cell it's considered an "endosome". Whereas a "virus" is just simply seen as a virus regardless of whether it's inside or outside of the cell. So in one image you could see what's described as a virus 'attacking' or 'infecting' a cell from the inside, when in actuality it could simply be an exosome that has entered the cell, thereby becoming an endosome, and delivering it's RNA code to the cell.
Exosomes/endosomes have only recently started to attract scientific interest in the last 15-20 years, so there's much more to learn. This is also why there's so much contention in the medical community as to what they are and the role they play in disease or even if they're at all distinguishable from viruses. The 'mainstream' scientific viewpoint is that they are (at least sometimes) involved in an infection; however, Dr. Cowan would argue that their presence around an infected tissue is indicative of the body's attempt to defend/detox from the infection and not that they're there to cause an infection. He likens it to coming across a house that's on fire with a bunch of firefighters standing around spraying water on it. Just because firefighters are at the site of the fire doesn't mean they caused it; they're just there to stop it. Same with exosomes.
As for your PCR lab guy... if he's well versed in exosomes, my guess is that he'd echo the mainstream thought, which would be something along the lines of 'well we're still learning about them but the conventional thought is that they're an inter-cellular communication vesicle and that they might be involved with disease somehow'. I highly doubt he'd acknowledge the more 'fringe' opinion that exosomes are being confused for viruses, and that they're only on the site of an infection to help and not harm.
Likewise if you asked him about whether they've isolated the COVID virus. He'll probably say yes, but I doubt he could provide the details for how they went about doing it (as Dr. Cowan does). When you look at the methods that have been done, it's hard to see how there couldn't be alternative explanations for how the test animals actually got sick other than "we gave it the virus". Ultimately, nothing that has been done hold up to the scrutiny of Koch's postulates, which is the standard for proving a contagion.
Regarding specific pictures, here are some screen grabs from a presentation by Dr. Andrew Kaufman back in March which offer a comparison:
View attachment 1825
View attachment 1827