In Fearing Fictionally, Walton brings up the example of Charles who thinks he felt fear while watching a movie about green slime, the conclusion that Walton reaches is that Charles was not actually fearful of the slime movie but rather fictionally fearful. He comes to this conclusion partly because of the unmotivated response that Charles has. However, what if Charles was already truly fearful of slime?
Walton gives the example of the person truly afraid of flying, refusing to fly. This is shown to be a true response to fear, since that person has done what they can to avoid it. Although, what of people putting themselves in situations in which they know the response will be fear? Does this not happen? I do not mean a dangerous situation as Walton brings up with the hikers or mountain climbers.

To make myself a bit more clear, lets use another example lets say Paul is terrified of ghosts, believes they may truly exist. However, Paul loves going to scary ghost movies and feeling afraid. Since Paul is scared of ghosts to begin with but has chosen to put himself in a situation where his fear of ghost would be aroused; is Paul then, not actually scared?

The question then becomes do some people not enjoy putting themselves in situations where they would feel fear?If so then when they do feel fear, is this not valid feeling of fear, even though its in response to something fictional?Like in the situation of Paul where an actual fear existed prior to response of something fictional?

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)