To end with a question: Given this example against Scruton's definition of an "ideal photograph," and the fact that his argument was based entirely on his "ideal examples," does Scruton's argument still hold true?

Scruton's argument still holds true in the face of the example that you've made, since he does not use what you are calling "ideal examples" but rather that same kind of example that you raised. He states " if the photograph is sad, it is usually because its subject is sad; if the photograph is touching it is because its subject is touching and so on."(225) He also previously says that in this kind of function, the camera is as good as pointing a finger at the subject to show one, as in your example, that "spirit" of the depression.
I think that we have all taken issue with Scruton mainly because there is some internal sense in all of us that photography is art, and given his argument it, which really has no holes in it, photography is not art. However, what if we took his premises and were to in a way turn it against his argument. The "ideal" photograph shows something at a particular point in a particular way. We live in an ever changing environment, one in which a particular angle of a particular person, place or thing exist only for that moment in which the photograph captures it.

So then my question is: Is there any way in which that presentation can somehow turn into a representation? (Since this is what is needed to call something an art form, because representation shows artistic intention)