Is it possible for a photograph to portray "intentional inexistance?"

"Intentional inexistance" is a term used by Roger Scruton in his essay, "Photography and Representation." In his essay, Scruton states that it is impossible for something that is "inexistance" does not exist. I would have to say that capturing something that is "inexistance" is indeed impossible, however, there are editing programs for photographs that can put in that element of "inexistance." Then again Scruton argues that once a photo has been edited, it becomes a painting; although everyone still calls it a photograph. With slight edits, it is possible to capture lighting in a "non-existant" way; i.e. blue light that would normally be a white shade or grass that sparkles more like glitter than if it was covered in dew. So it is technically impossible to capture something "inexistance" in a raw un-edited photograph, however, with a few edits it can indeed do so and is still considered a photograph.