Is it smooth or does it have whole fruits / pieces / bits in it? Where orange juice with bits in it is a fairly well established usage - but that's really a drink, not "food" (nor even an essentially liquid "dessert", if consumed using a spoon).

It's very dense, but I wouldn't say it had "whole fruits / pieces / bits in it". It's part of the dish, not the whole dish. The problem is that it's very different from the picture on the menu.

Not sure if the picture is quite a contract. Sounds like the issue is less solid vs. liquid, more fresh fruit vs. frozen puree. Disappointing, not scandalous.

@Yosef Baskin, the picture looked distinctively different from the real thing we got. Any customer would notice the difference and be disappointed. But that's not the point. I'm asking how to describe those 2 forms.

A packet of breakfast cereal might feature a picture of it in a bowl with berries or chopped pieces of fresh fruit sprinkled on top (especially, muesli). Obviously nobody ever expected that fruit topping to be in the packet, but eventually trading standards bodies got involved, so in the UK today they always have to put a disclaimer by the picture: Serving suggestion. Maybe from OP's restaurant's perspective, the menu pic just happened to show a bit of "optional fresh fruit garnish" that they didn't have to hand on that day.

@FumbleFingers, I said "We were at a restaurant" in my question. We were not buying stuff from a supermarket. In a restaurant, your real food should look like the thing on the menu. Otherwise it's false advertising. But that's irrelevant to my question. I asked a linguistic question. I didn't ask anything about advertising.

@FumbleFingers, the strawberry was a big part of the dish and took a lot of space in the pic. Some people order that dish because of that.

Perhaps fresh vs. processed.

What is the name of the dessert? If I was expecting fresh strawberries and cream but got instead coulis or a strawberry glaze I would complain.

@Mari-Lou A, thank you for replying. I don't remember the name because it happened years ago. We complained but the waiter's very rude. He kept saying that the jam was "strawberry" and that that was what we ordered. The manager just stood not far from him and watched. We were foreigners so we didn't know how to argue.

We wouldn't describe jam as 'fruit in liquid form'. You could have said "The picture shows pieces of fruit, not just strawberry jam/purée." But food photographers are notorious for falsifying the appearance of a dish to make it look more appetising.

In culinary terms, it depends if the fruit had sugar in it (jam, compote, etc) or was just unsweetened fruit. But if you're complaining in a restaurant you may as well get colourful and say something like "You gave us mushed-up fruit!"

@Mari-Lou A, I found the name of the dish. It's "Strawberries & Cream Crepes". Its name even has "strawberries" in it.

@Kate Bunting, Thank you for replying. I’m not picky, but if the material of the food’s too different from the pic, I have to complain. I’ve saw some news before that people sue restaurants (mainly chains) for false advertising pics.

If the preparation was sieved it is a coulis. If smashed, it's a purée.

Omega: I never mentioned "advertising". I simply said that just as a picture on a packet of breakfast cereal might include "garnish" that wasn't actually included in the product as sold, similar "embellishment" could occur in a restaurant. As commented elsewhere, you only normally get pictures on menus in fairly downmarket eateries such as burger bars, were I've often been sold something that falls woefully below expectations when compared to the picture on the menu, And imho a bit of chopped fruit could well be seen as "optional garnish" on cream crepes at a beach cafe.

This question is similar to: What is the word for the edible part of a fruit with rind (e.g., lemon, orange, avocado, watermelon)?. If you believe it’s different, please edit the question, make it clear how it’s different and/or how the answers on that question are not helpful for your problem.

@FumbleFingers, the thing you talked about was advertising. We all know that. And the dishonest practice that occurs in restaurants is called false advertising. As I said, the pic on a restaurant’s menu can’t be compared to a pic on a cereal box you buy from a supermarket. If a Big Mac meal has fries in the pic, it has to have fries. Otherwise it’s fraud. The actual size can differ from the pic a bit, but the material can’t be different.

@FumbleFingers, As I said above, even the name of the dish had “strawberries” in it and they took a lot of space in the pic; it’s not “a bit of chopped fruit”, but whole pieces of strawberries. If you put a lot of strawberries on the pic, people with common sense wouldn’t see it as “optional garnish”. And I didn’t order it from a beach café. If a pic of a hamburger has meat in it, meat’s not “garnish”. You can’t serve it without meat. So far you haven’t said anything about the real linguistic question.

I addressed what you're calling the "real" question with the first sentence of my first comment - Is it smooth or does it have whole fruits / pieces / bits in it? All else was an attempt to get more precise details of your exact context.

@FumbleFingers, “garnish” means “vegetable, herb, etc used to decorate a dish of food or add to its flavour”. The definition doesn’t indicate nonexistence. In a restaurant, even if you put it in the picture as “garnish”, you should provide it. And if it’s a big part of the picture, it’s not “garnish” at all.