I would add this thought to the thread. Some other visual artists have attacked photography historically because of the possibility of endless prints. they argue that a painting is art because it is unique. Photos aren't because they can be duplicated.

"The negative is the score; the print is the performance." Where have we heard that before?. If one examines Adams' interpretation of Moonrise, hernandez over the decades one sees revisions. If one reads the New York edition of henry James vs. the first editions, one sees revisions. Try the director's cut vs. the original release cut of films.

So i guess it can be argued either way. Certainly a single print or a small edition suggests uniqueness (read that possibility of value increasing.

If you coolect and/or sell increasing value is a good thing.

As far as destruction of negs is concerned, I think that denies future generations of artists the thrill of seeing how the old master selected, and interpreted his/her negatives. Whether you master is an Adams, Evans, Arbus, Lange, Winogrand , Weston or Cartier-Bresson, studying their processes cannot but increase your ability to see, understand, and enjoy.