"סגנון אחד עולה לכמה נביאים, ואין שני נביאים מתנבאים בסגנון אחד
one sign can appear to many nevi'im, but not two nevi'im prophecy using the same sign." (R Yitzchaq on Sanhedrin 89a)
It does seem to be a personal interpretation. Which would explain why the same revelation might not be described the same if seen by two prophets.
But then, according to the Rambam, the vision is also subjective. According to his understanding, nevu'ah is a glimpse of something that the brain can only comprehend by casting it in the familiar.
According to the Ramban, nevu'ah is a message sent in metaphor because only Moshe could handle more direct contact. There is reason to say the metaphor is chosen by HQBH, not the navi.
According to the Abravanel (on the end of Mishpatim) this is core to understanding their debate in Vayeira as well as on the Man in the Throne vision at Har Sinai.
The Rambam has no problem saying that Avraham could only see the angels prophetically. Because to the Rambam, "things" seen prophectically are really there, even if not physical substance that can be seen with the eyes. However, he says the "Man" the elders see at Mount Sinai is a created entity, the Kavod Nivra, because G-d cannot be seen, even by prophetic "vision".
Whereas to the Ramban, saying the angels came in a nevu'ah would mean that Hashem sent a message that included a vision of angels. Which would leave no one to heal Avraham, destroy the Cities of the Plains, or save Lot's family. He has to have the angels actually take the form of people. On the other hand, the Man in the Throne could be G-d Himself, since there is no theological problem with G-d sending the Elders a message in which He represents Himself as a person.
If we take the Rambam's position, then, the whole thing is subjective, followed by a creative element. And even by the Ramban's position, the vision is Hashem's choice, but the idiom in which it is is expressed is still personal choice.
