Im 100% with you. Monoprints and color guides should not be considered the same as traditional original art, which is why they sell for far less.
But Out of curiosity...how do you define an original digital photograph print? Is it original? Is it a print? Or an original print?
If prints that were produced by the artist of his/her digital original comic art are considered reproduction pieces and not original, why aren’t prints from digital photographs considered reproductions as well? But yet, they are considered original, with a pretty hefty price tag, I may add, when they come from the photographer itself.