A what if about Whistler

I was coming home last night and cut across the meadow. The moon was rising and so was a mist so I nipped back out again with my camera; I'm really enjoying grappling with my own Nocturnes so the more raw material the better. The mist did beautiful things to the street lamps and headlights on the bypass in the first photo and conjured light seemingly out of nowhere across the whole width of the meadow in the second - the light on the right is from the entrance to the duty free warehouse and the light on the left is from the bypass and even though they are hundreds of metres apart the mist has managed to draw them together. The light on the horizon is a house just on the brow of the hill.

I can't help but wonder what Whistler would have made of modern digital cameras and the ability to capture fleeting effects of colour and light so effortlessly. Would he just revel in the joy of it and lose his discipline? Would he be frustrated at the limitations of the kit and the distortions in colour, shape and space photography inevitably introduces? Would it just be a way to gather information for paintings, a companion to the sketchbook and a prompt to the memory? Or would he find a way to elevate the medium to new heights? Of course there's no knowing and the same questions could and should be asked about Monet and Degas and many others, but speculating about it is an intriguing way to while away five minutes.