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