[erikpukinskis]

It’s the same reason there are $100 million paintings but not $100 million photographs.

Painting is not copying. Painting is seeing and then making marks on the page that will make others see.

It is editorial in a way photography isn’t.

[samatman]

I don't think that this is the reason.

Photographs are inherently multiple; a single print might be all that exists, but the artist is at least able to make more.

Comparing photographs and prints, Picasso's "La Femme Qui Pleure I" sold for $5.1M[0], while the most paid for a photograph appears to be $4.3M, for Rhein II by Andreas Gursky[1].

I conclude from this that it's the singularity of paintings, rather than their editorial and subjective quality, that is responsible for the difference in price.

[0]: https://www.christies.com/features/saleroom-picasso-la-femme...

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_photogr...

[Someone]

Paintings can be reproduced, both manually and automatically. Prints used to be easy to spot because of color quality and because they were perfectly flat, but that has become a lot harder with the advent of 3D printers that can layer ink and even craquelure (visually). See for example https://shop.ariustechnology.com/collections/all-products.

I think it’s more a matter of ‘snobbiness’ that determines prices that get paid.

[thanatropism]

You speak-write with such certainty that I'm sure you have an argument in your mind, but it didn't come across. I feel like some sentences were erased from your comment.

[lonelappde]

Supply and Demand. A valuable photo has higher supply so each copy is worth less. A valuable concrete illustration has supply of 1, even if the artist has cranked out many similar works.

[irjustin]

I agree with the 'editorial' aspect of this comment.

The illustrator is able to draw the defining characteristics of the plant/subject and leave out what is not important. Things like veins or leaf structure to define the genus are incredibly important.

The editorial nature can bring that forward. With a picture, it is hard for a lay person to tell what details are classifying/important.