A little help please

On friday I wasn't able to stay in class and be apart of the discussion but I would really like to clear a few things up. If Scruton believes that photography cannot be representational why doesn't he address the fact that some works of art done by painters can also be described the same? How can a photograph not be appreciated aesthetically? It is understandable that photos are simpler in composition than a painting but I believe that some photographs have greater value than paintings at times.