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.

How do portrait photography and portraiture painting compare in expressing the subject?

Both portrait photography and portraiture painting produce an image of a person, but what is portrayed by the image differs. With the photograph, the image is an exact copy of what the person looked like in that moment when the photo was taken; putting aside all editing possibilities. With a portraiture painting, the image seen is more of an interpretation of the artist's view of the person. In a portrait photo, the emotions on the person's face are exactly that, the emotion on their face. Whereas in a portraiture painting, the emotion conveyed is that of which has been painted by the artist in their interpretation; meaning that many more things about the subject can be learned the more the painting is looked at, than in a photo. There is also a difference in texture, the photo's surface is smooth while the painting's isn't, which adds more visual interest to the painting. In the end, I think that a photograph captures the immediate thoughts of the subject, while the painting captures something within the subject as interpreted by the artist. To express the subject as they are I would say that a photograph is better, but to express the subject in a deeper more thought evoking way, I would say that a painting is better.