Frida Kahlo "Photograph" has dots when viewed with magnification

This piece came into the store on consignment and was described as an original photo, but viewing it with a magnifying glass shows that the image is constructed with dots similar to pictures in a newspaper or magazine. My first picture below shows the overall image (behind glass in a frame). The second picture shows an extreme close up with the dots visible (same as what I see with a 10x lens directly). The "photograph" has a mat finish which doesn't seem appropriate for the claimed age. It is a heavy stock with a smooth finish, and nothing is visible on the back of the "photograph".

My question here is - is there any printing process from the 1940's era that would account for what we see? Alternately, given what we see, does anyone recognize the printing technique used? I am trying to positively confirm that this is a reproduction, and not original at all to the claimed period. Thank you for any help! ... Dave

p.s. One curious detail is that this image is available as a print on eBay, but it is a mirror image. See http://www.ebay.com/itm/Diego-Rover...867548?hash=item43eb805f1c:g:I5kAAOSwpIdW7dgf

 

print

 

I am sure that that is a photogravure reproduction.

 

All the photos I have seen of this are mirror images of yours - probably a print that "mirror image" setting on the printer was used so not to be confused as a reproduction or counterfiet.

 

When I look up photogravure, it says "resulting in a high quality intaglio print that can reproduce the detail and continuous tones of a photograph" - so it shouldn't have dots?

 

The odd thing about the mirror image is that the copyright mark at the bottom is oriented properly on the images, whether mirror or not.

 

It has dots, just that the better quality the print the finer the screen and hence the finer the dots. Think of it as pixels per inch. Even a photo printed from the negative on photo emulsion paper has 'dots' but they are microfine random particles of silver referred to as the 'grain' in a photograph and however grainy the print, it is never regular.

 

Here's a comparable with the same orientation: http://www.npg.org.uk/whatson/exhibitions/frida-kahlo-portait-of-an-icon.php

 

I understand afantiques - still a print, but a better quality method of making one. I think I'm saying that correctly.

 

A tiny bit off-subject... Frida is at the heart of so many questions... a "debate" still rages on eBay thread(s) about whether or not an eBay guy is really selling "genuine" Frida paintings for a few hundred bucks... the guy is a clear faker but still bilks folks looking to find a masterpiece on the cheap. I'm so glad we here commit to genuine research. Y'all rock.

 

Images with dots like that are called halftone prints. I think there is more than one process that can produce that look. It is done through an offset printing process. Maybe somebody here can explain it more.

 

It is assuredly a reproduction, and looks at first glance like a halftone image. The printing process -- offset lithography, letterpress, etc -- is not clear, since halftone images are used in several printing processes.

Rotogravure produces a different pattern than a halftone image. There are good samples of gravure and rotogravure patterns here, and you can compare them with your picture and decide what you have:

https://www.getty.edu/conservation/...s/pdf_publications/pdf/atlas_photogravure.pdf

Those Sunday newspaper pictorials were printed by rotogravure.