The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction 1 focuses on the destruction of aura in art. According to Benjamin, aura is that quality which makes an art object unique. Additionally, the history to which it was subjected determined the unique existence of the work of art. The reproducibility of such an object destroys the aura and potential for a history thus rendering the art object accessible to the masses. As such, Benjamin sees this quality of mechanical reproduction as favorable.
Benjamin asserts that photographs are beneficial because they destroy aura.
The negative is a source of sorts but is not an original in that it is not a photograph, but rather the blueprint for making one. Clearly there are exceptions to such a claim. But Benjamin focuses on societal significance, and thus such discussions of personal history are not applicable to counter his arguments. Even factoring out personal attaachments, the notion that no print is more valid than another is difficult. Whereas the negative can be thought of as the source of the photograph, the source of film is more fragmented because it must include the negative, the screenplay, the actors, the crew, etc.