The Loss of "Aura"

"In principle a work of art has always been reproducible." -Walter Benjamin
He also says that "Even the most perfect reproduction of a work of art is lacking in one element: its presence in time and space, it's unique existence at the place where it happened to be."
This concept is one in which I've read previously by Walter Benjamin in cmc100. The article explained how paintings are often reproduced, but it is never quite the same as the original. It loses it's "aura" or in other words it's uniqueness.
This article expressed the same ideas yet with different examples, such as films and photographs. It is true that when you take a photo the actual picture does not depict what the naked eye saw. In fact the picture may reveal images that were unseen by the "unarmed" eye. Unless you are actually there when the picture is taken, again that "aura" is lost in the reproduction of the picture. It lacks the presence in time and space. I found it interesting that he brought up the fact that you are able to retain the negatives to you photographs, but it is pointless to ask for the original. What is the original, thinking as Walter Benjamin, the original photograph is unable to be obtained it was in the photographers sight at the time of the photograph.
He goes on to explain this concept in film. When attending a play, the audience is able to experience the "aura" of the actors because they are in their presence. When a movie is being shot, the "aura" of the acting is lost in the camera. It is not the same when you are there to see the performance. The camera has different views it is able to show. Such as close-ups, and different angles. The "Aura" is that of the camera and not of the acting.
The "aura" is a sense of presence, a uniqueness as I stated before and Walter Benjamin states in his writing. In this "Age of Mechanical Reproduction, The Work of Art" is unable to posses that "Aura" the original does. Whether it may be in a painting, a photograph, or a film, the reproduction is never the same.