Is it possible to use Wittgenstein's 'picture theory' to shoot?

For me, this is one of the most fundamental questions that keeps on haunting me. It is something about the meaning behind images.

We are the one attentively/inattentively/willingly/unwillingly watching the world. (Tractatus: 2.1 We picture facts to ourselves.) And we believe that what we watch shows the fact.

But what's in images? I think the most important thing is the logical (including time) and spatial relations amount different objects. (2.11 A picture presents a situation in logical space, the existence and non-existence of states of affairs.) Even the absence of an object could be a very important and explicit clue in an image. We, of course, can take a picture on something that is existing, but what about disappearing or non-exist objects? Does non-existence really mean voidness or something you cannot put in your photos?

Maybe, a thing for photography to transgress is showing the presence of absence.

Back to meaning. In this city, is there something should be expressed but we fail to do so? Dyslexia of image?