Well, yes and no, and not exactly. It might depend on how you think pornography affected the development of the internet. In some ways pornographic photos helped support the development and definitely helped to support some early photographic studios that did some smut dealing on the side to support their legitimate business--this would later lead to increased interest and engagement with photography which would lead to later development. SO the answer really is porn didn't drive the creation of photography but it helped to drive increasing innovation and interest in it, much like it did with the internet.

Here's a bit from my book where I discuss photography:

As is commonly known, the first major breakthrough in photographic technology originated from the experiments of Louis Daguerre, who invented the process known as daguerreotype, and whose technology was given to the world by the French nation in 1839. Daguerreotypes were a major breakthrough because they allowed a photographic exposure to be taken in a matter of minutes, versus the hours of exposure that used to be required. To make a daguerreotype, early photographers took a cleaned and polished copper plate and covered it with a thin layer of silver iodide—by candlelight, in order to avoid any exposure to light. The image is revealed by exposing it to mercury vapors (very dangerous and nauseating), and then washing it in salty water. This labor-intensive process, combined with the high cost of the materials, made daguerreotypes only available for the financially well-off. It was not until 1853 when the Englishman Fredrick Scott Archer's negative on glass process allowed printing on paper in unlimited amounts.

As proof of my statement that literature provided the model and context for pornography, erotic photography followed the same process as erotic literature. In the beginning, photographs were expensive (as much as a week's salary for the average person), and their high cost limited the purchasers to the upper-classes. The first publishers and connoisseurs—Hans-Michael Koetzle notes in 1000 Nudes: A History of Erotic Photography—saw this as a good thing, as the prices kept the number of customers to a manageable level, and confined to “social classes respected for their moral integrity and ethical stability.” The improved technology which allowed mass printing and lowered costs was what caused things to become, “‘problematic’ in the pleasure-dampening and prudish Victorian sense.”

But when the process became easier, and photography became more widespread and more of an industrial process, then the moral outcry and demands for regulation began. By the 1860s, paper photographs were being sold by hawkers or booksellers in London's Holywell Street or in the Grands Boulevards district of Paris. As Alexander Dupoy puts it in his Erotic Art Photography:

The moral question of circulation to the general public was not a problem when it only concerned the daguerreotypes, as the excessive cost ensured a limited distribution to the elite. It now became a problem, as it was possible for every soldier, schoolboy, young man or even young woman to acquire or have access to a licentious image, even if the image was academic. The mid-nineteenth century was a time of great confusion between moral order and artistic aestheticism.

The subjects of the first images were of landscapes or objects—it was difficult to photograph nudes or people because it took several minutes to take the picture, and people had a tendency of moving, especially if said people were having sex. Regardless, where there is a will, there is a way. According to Alexandre Dupouy's Erotic Photography, a certain optician named Noël-Marie Paimal Lebours claimed to have taken the first nude photograph by 1841 (I could not find a copy of it however!). Hilariously enough, when the first commercial photographs went on sale in France, they were available from the offices of opticians, and in the salons of high-end art dealers—not in shady backstreet alleyways (that would come later). The original nude photography was almost like a painting would be done. As Dupouy notes:

They mimicked artists and painters by making pastiches of their compositions and the use of accessories, including draping, columns and fabric. In fact, most of the precursors of photography came directly from painting. The interconnection between the two processes seemed obvious: photographers were inspired by painters, and painters made use of photography. With photography, artists no longer had to put up with models who either did not turn up or were late.

But this does not mean that all erotic photographs were sweet and innocent photographs; it only look seven years from the announcement of the technology to the first commercially available daguerreotype of people having sex!

As the French were the first to pioneer and master daguerreotypes and photography, Paris became the center of the trade in erotic and obscene images, just as it had once served as the center for erotic and obscene books. In 1848, only 13 studios existed in all of Paris, but by 1860, there were over 400! All of them claimed to be reputable joints that only took pictures of individuals and families, but in fact, most of them traded and profited from the sale of nude images to any customer that had the money. The lewd pictures were also sold near train stations by hawkers, and in the streets of London, Paris, Amsterdam, Philadelphia, New York, other European and American cities, and were also sent via mail to customers. All of these activities caused the Societies for the Suppression of Vice in England and America to begin targeting and prosecuting the sellers, along with their decades-long fight against obscene literature. A police report from Paris illustrates how much the trade had boomed: in 1850, exactly 60 photographs had been seized, but by 1860, ten years later, the police were confiscating thousands of examples. By 1875 the number had ballooned to 130,000 photographs with “lewd” subjects.

The prosecutions began. It seems the first lucky individual prosecuted for erotic photography was one Félix Moulin, about whom not much is known. He was prosecuted in 1851 and sentenced to one month in prison and a fine of 100 francs. However, the fines on female models was far worse—in 1857, four women were sentenced to six months in prison on top of the hundred franc fine.