Printing Digital Art:
Fine Artists Explore the Promise of New Markets

by JD Jarvis
Las Cruces, New Mexico

Digital tools and techniques have revolutionized how most imagery and even Fine Art is being made. Photography, for example, is thought of today as primarily a digital endeavor. The general public understands and, for the most part, has accepted that scanning and inkjet technology has improved the quality of art reproduction to the extent that we see what could be described as an entirely new product within the art reproduction market. And, although it remains somewhat misunderstood, the making of original digital fine art directly within the workings of a computer is a widely practiced and accepted means for making Contemporary Art. Regardless of which approach or combination of the above you take toward making your digital imagery, chances are you materialize that work in the form of prints either on paper, canvas or some other substrate associated with the often fickle and arcane world of Fine Art.

As with nearly every other endeavor in modern society the Internet beckons to you with the potential for worldwide markets and fast, flawless distribution of your digital goods. Virtual galleries coupled with print-on-demand websites continue to spring up offering both digital and traditional artists global markets and even hands-free printing, framing and shipping services. For an artist, the idea of having a presence on a site that is open day or night to the entire world and that might produce prints and perhaps even frame and ship them to your valued customers, then deposit the spoils directly into your bank account seems to answer all one's needs. A quick check of the web tells us that such marketing services are already beginning to spring up. In a perfectly digital world this is the answer to your dreams.

However, the world of Fine Art is not entirely perfect nor is it pervasively digital. As one who practices this means of making art, you may already know there are many established Fine Art paradigms that are challenged by digital media. I, as one who wishes to have his original artwork shown and appreciated as Fine Art, got together with two other U.S.-based artists who possess a wealth of experience and knowledge -- Helen Golden* and Mel Strawn** -- to ask ourselves some basic questions about these web based markets. In order to do this we:
1) Examined how is the best way to deliver image files to a distant printing service.
2) Organized our own tests as to see how well and under what circumstances would distant printing systems deliver acceptably consistent high quality prints.
3) Finally, we took a look at these emerging web based markets, categorized their operations and made some determinations as to how well they met our interests and goals in producing Fine Art digitally.


First of all, as one would hope, a digital file is a digital file regardless of how that file is delivered to the print provider. Helen, Mel, and I exchanged files via the U.S. Postal Service on CD and the web with no discernable difference in the prints these files produced. However, we avoided sending any sort of compressed files, such as JPEGs, which do exhibit artifacts especially when enlarged. Genuine Fractals files are fine in that a "loseless" 2:1 compression ratio can be selected when saving files using this plug-in.

We can also confirm that there is no discernable difference between images that are enlarged using either Genuine Fractals or the Adobe Bicubic resampling up to about 300%. Above 300% Genuine Fractals seems to have a bit of an edge. And, if (heaven forbid) you need to enlarge an image say 800%, then the advice given by Genuine Fractals to enlarge the file 400% in G.F., then go the next 200% in Photoshop is well advised.

We found that using FTP sites and software to send files via the web was most efficient. Mel and I tried "Pando," which is one of the systems that allows you to send large image files via standard Internet, but its performance was clunky, unpredictable and slower than FTP. Having an FTP site to send and receive large image files should be basic procedure for any web based marketing and printing service. There need be no hesitation printing from an uncompressed digital file that is sent via the web. Remember, however, that the speed of any Internet delivery is based on the speed of your ISP.

The Matter of Size
Exactly what size file to send and print is still a cause of some confusion. This confusion stems from two basic sources. One such source is a misunderstanding of technical terminology and the other is a result of the having printing systems that, in general, do such a good job as to defy common logic.

First, there is the matter of p.p.i. (pixels per inch) versus d.p.i. (dots per inch). Often these two are used interchangeably, but in truth these are two separate sets of measurement. While they seem to refer to the same thing, the p.p.i. is a computer file designation which ultimately indicates the size of a data file in megabytes. On the other hand, d.p.i. is a printer designation and indicates how many dots of ink will be placed on the printed page per linear inch. The computer monitor has a fixed number of pixels per inch so changing the p.p.i of a file will change how large the image appears on the screen, and so this has some mistaken correlation to the resolution of the image. Resolution is the ability to resolve fine detail. But, "up-sampling" a file from its original 150 p.p.i. size to 300 p.p.i. does not increase resolving power, it simply doubles the number of pixels present in a file that then has two pixels doing what one pixel did before (with the new pixels "invented"). There is no way to increase actual detail beyond the initial p.p.i. But, there is a difference between actual resolution and "perceived detail." Studies have shown that a person will often judge an image with more contrast to be "sharper" than the same image without the contrast adjustment. Our eye tells us that a "sharper" image has more detail, but the actual amount of image resolution has not changed.

When it comes to bringing that file out of the data state and onto the printed page, "d.p.i." describes how fine the basic dot screen will be. Pixels are then reconfigured and simulated by drops of ink. But, it is never a case of one dot of ink per pixel, because it is often several drops of ink of different colors that are required to re-create one small area of the image. So, p.p.i. does not translate into d.p.i.; therefore, there are separate controls and decisions that a person can make to control these aspects of the file-to-print flow.

As mentioned, the second source of misunderstanding regarding file versus print size and the quality of the printed image has to do with the almost counter-intuitive ability of today's printing systems to produce a high-quality image. Logic would tell you that more data, as measured by p.p.i., would result in greater resolution, which it does. But, since this data essentially passes through and is screened by the printer into a different set of measurement (namely d.p.i.), this does not automatically translate into a print with more resolving power.

In our experiments, Mel, Helen, and I took 300 p.p.i. files and printed them at both the 600 and 1200 d.p.i. printer settings native to our HP printers. We then down-sampled these files to 150 p.p.i. (essentially throwing away visual data) and printed these at both 600 and 1200 d.p.i. Logic would tell you that there would be highly discernable differences between all these prints, but in fact the differences were so minor as to warrant reconsideration of the size of the files we create and transmit.


ABOVE: JD Jarvis gets out the magnifying glass to evaluate print quality differences.

Specifically, the difference in image quality between a 300 p.p.i. file and a 150 p.p.i. file is not discernable. Where a larger p.p.i. file becomes important is when you wish to enlarge the image. As mentioned before you cannot create more detail by simply increasing the p.p.i. of a file, so if you intend to make a print that is larger than the original dimensions of the image file, it is better to start with a larger file in terms of p.p.i. What are the limits? Well, our tests have shown that a 150 p.p.i . file can be enlarged 100% without noticeable lose of detail. And, that a 300 p.p.i file can go as high as 300% enlargement with the same acceptable result.

What this means is that an artist can work with a file that is 150 p.p.i. at or around the final physical dimensions of the print they expect to produce and, if it is deemed necessary, this file could print an image that is twice the size you originally planned. This also means that you do not have to send huge files via the Internet to a distant printing service. With faster computers and larger and larger storage systems this awareness of minimum file size may not be as important as it was several years ago, however, if you have lamented the time it takes for certain filters to render an image or how long it takes to upload a file to a FTP site then I suggest you run your own test to confirm this.

Moving on to d.p.i., which is to say moving on to the print itself, both Mel and Helen report a slight difference between files that are printed at 600 or 1200 d.p.i. Comments run that the 1200 d.p.i. prints: "have more life, brighter colors, more depth and nuance." Helen reported that it was a bit harder to tell the prints apart when viewed separately rather than side by side. And, both of these experienced artists felt that the differences in image quality were comparable to the accepted differences that occurred between traditional prints that are "pulled" by hand. It has been my experience that the differences between prints made at 600 d.p.i. and 1200 d.p.i are most often detected only under a magnifying glass or a jeweler's loupe. Given that the accepted viewing distance of a print starts at three feet or beyond, the fact that you have to get out a magnifying glass to tell the difference is, itself, the answer to the question. Observations that the transitions between different colors appear smoother when prints are made at 1200 d.p.i., and the fact that little time or ink is saved when printing at 1200 d.p.i. versus 600 d.p.i., means that any respectable print should be made at the maximum d.p.i. settings available with any given printer.


ABOVE: Installed "Swimming Pool" by Helen Golden

We should note that all three of us create images that are more often painterly than photographic and, by nature, these images are more interpretive and rely less on realism than, for example, portrait photography. Often our concerns are with pure colors and blemish-free areas of flat color. As noted above, to create images requiring the highest degree of resolving power you need to start with sufficient p.p.i. to produce the right amount of detail for your specific work. Above all, we encourage you to experiment and confirm what is right for your work.


After we had established the parameters for the physical aspects of delivering fine art files via the Internet, my two cohorts and I set out to tackle the issues of consistent quality of the prints. Helen has, as do I, a Hewlett-Packard Designjet Z3100 Photo Printer, which she uses to produce her fine art prints. Mel has an Epson Stylus Pro 9000 and a Hewlett-Packard Photosmart Pro B9180 Professional Photo Printer for printing his work. Certainly not a cross section of every printing system available today; yet, in our own way, we devised a method to test:
-- Do prints of the identical image file appear different when printed by "somewhat" different printing systems?
-- Do identical printing systems at different locations create the same prints?
-- Do printing systems made by totally different manufacturers produce identical prints?
For a web based art marketing and print delivery system to work these are the basic issues that system must address. Given that some of the more enticing printer models currently offered for Internet marketing include the scenario wherein the artist turns over the job of making the digital print to a distant, often unknown, print center, the basic question we had is: could we relax and know that our client (who also remains distant) has received the print we intended to deliver? Although we were not able to test every print system being manufactured today, we were able to confirm some basic realities that I think will apply across the board.


ABOVE: Mel using the HP Photosmart B9180 printer.

First of all Mel and I tested whether the HP B9180 printer was consistent with my HP Z3100 printer. The major differences between these systems is the maximum size of the prints that can be made and the fact that the Z3100 employs an on-board GetagMacbeth i1 spectrophotometer to create site-specific, custom profiles for any paper loaded on it. Also, the HP B9180 is an 8-color ink printer while the HP Z3100 uses 11 color inks and a "gloss enhancer" to reduce bronzing when printing on glossy photo papers. The most significant similarity being that both machines are equipped with the HP Vivera ink set. We also looked at how different substrates effected the consistency, since some of the Internet marketing and print providers allow the client to select which paper is used to make a print.

We found that there is a very good, even excellent, match between these two "slightly" different systems. At the end of all our permutations Mel remarked that, he would "feel confident in sending an image that was proofed on a HP B9180 to a Z3100 printer to have a large print done for a purchaser." We did wind up feeling confident that these HP systems, even though they are slightly different in design and features, provide an acceptable and marketable match. We were also surprised that prints made on different "fine art" papers were very consistent between these two systems. But, we did note that there are more significant differences between the same files printed on matte fine art papers versus glossy photo papers.


ABOVE: Helen in her studio. HP Designjet Z3100 printer in background.

With those results it was less of a surprise when Helen's HP Z3100 put out prints that matched prints from mine. Essentially, what this did prove to us was that the on-board spectrophotometer delivers on Hewlett-Packard's promise that, "after color calibration, you can expect to get identical prints from any two different Z31000 printers situated in different geographical locations." Since it is likely that a world wide web marketer will have several printing centers in different locations to reduce shipping costs, this is important if you wish to know that web based clients of your artwork are receiving the artwork you made.

Finally, Mel and I were able to test whether his Epson 9000 would make a print that matched my HP Z3100. Again, we used the same substrates and identical image data files. Given that Epson and Hewlett-Packard knowingly shoot for slightly different color gamuts, it came as little surprise that they make noticeably different prints of the same file. Mel was able to use Adobe Photoshop to adjust the gamma of the image file and hit upon a good match between the 9000 and the Z3100. There is, however, no simple or singular adjustment that will bring all files into the same match. In some cases, it is foreseeable that this difference could be a matter of one's preference. In this case, the unadjusted prints were noticeably different to an unmarketable degree. What this indicates to us is that given the inherent differences between how major manufacturers of inkjet printers approach color gamut and the formulation of inks, if one is seeking consistency across company lines, one has to rely on an experienced printmaker and proofing prints to make the necessary adjustments. I believe it also upholds the efficacy of making custom profiles for each paper and the ambient conditions of a printer's specific location.


ABOVE: Mel and his Epson Stylus Pro 9000.

Armed with this knowledge, we three then conducted a discussion of the feasibility of the emerging Internet marketing models and, with an eye toward the parameters of Fine Art, examined what these models provide for the artist and where these markets might currently be lacking.


As with all things on the Internet, the new printing and marketing models are constantly morphing. However, three basic types of markets are seen to be developing along the lines of (a) storefront or kiosk, (b) web based print-on-demand and framing centers, or (c) the more traditional master-printer format.

a) Storefront or Kiosk
With the kiosk or storefront model a person looking for some artwork goes to a digital terminal located in a gallery, frame shop, museum bookstore or some other kind of outlet. There they are able to view a selection of artwork contained on a local databank or specific web browser set up for this purpose. After choosing an image file the customer can select the size of the print and the substrate upon which the image will appear, along with framing and matting options. The print is made at that location and the customer walks out with the finished object. The artist receives the price they set for the artwork and usually gets some share of the profits based on the framing and matting charges. Kiosks such as this are already in operation at prestigious museums and galleries, such as the MOMA in New York and the National Gallery in London. While these operations draw upon the institutions they serve for the imagery that is reproduced in the form of an inkjet print, it is totally feasible for original digital art files to be presented and marketed in this way through the same sort of terminals. The implications for the art that is sold in this manner will be discussed later.


ABOVE: The print-on-demand kiosk at the MOMA/NYC museum shop.

b) Web-based, Print-on-demand and Framing Centers
The print-on-demand aspects of the kiosk marketing model can be extended to (or perhaps, even a part of) a larger web based operation. In this model an artist usually subscribes to a web based gallery operation that places their work on customized viewing pages for a fee. Potential buyers go on-line to select the work and, as with the kiosk model, have the opportunity to select size, substrate, frame and mat. The print is made at a printing center, framed and shipped to the client. To reduce shipping costs it is feasible that a web based printing gallery could have several print and frame centers in far-flung locations. Again, the artist gets their asking price plus a share of the framing charges wired to their bank, a Pay Pal or similar type account. Some of these operations provide the buyer with a way to contact the artist directly for the purchase of the original work of art and take no fees for this service. Again, the bulk of the print-on-demand business is in the form of providing a reproduction of the artwork seen on the web. As with the kiosk model the artist provides only a set of digital files and is more-or-less "hands off" the process after that.

One of the disadvantages that the kiosk and all web-based operations have in common is that the client's satisfaction is often determined by how well and accurately the view screen upon which they select their purchase is set-up. Through no fault of the artist or the printing process, if the buyer does not see an accurate image of the print at the point of purchase they may be dissatisfied by the printed results no matter how closely the file-to-print match truly is. Remember, they have only seen a screen image, which is not actually the artwork itself.

c) Traditional Master Printer Format
What we are calling the "master printer" or "personal printmaker" model is the method of making and marketing digital prints that is the closest to the traditional means of producing fine art prints and the model that was first adopted as it became known that high quality digital prints could be sold confidently by professional artists. In this model the artist delivers a digital file to an experienced printmaker who supplies proofs of the image on a selection of substrates. From these proofs a "bon-a-tirer" (French for "good to print") (aka BAT) is produced which is a finished print that will become the standard for comparing all subsequent prints of the image file. This bon-a-tirer is also often loosely referred to as the artist's proof or the printer's proof. Traditionally, several artist or printer proofs can be made (some say up to 10% of the total number within an edition). However, since digital prints can be made "on-demand" the need for a large number of proofs has been reduced. Using the data file developed to create the bon-a-tirer, the master printer provides prints to the artist, who markets them as they see fit.

The advantages of the "master printer" model are that it allows the artist a very hands-on control and approval of the quality of the prints and also provides the artist the opportunity to sign, number and otherwise authenticate the prints in keeping with the tradition of fine art printmaking. Also, traditionally the master printer has little or no role in the marketing of the artwork.

Many digital artists consider a high quality, large format printer as part of the required equipment of their electronic studios. In which case they become the printmaker with more added control, added opportunity to experiment with the process of digital printmaking, and the ability to make work that is informed and enhanced by the creative feedback and surprises that are often revealed only in the print. The disadvantages of self-printing are that the artist must spend more time and money for equipment, supplies, shipping and in marketing the work, while perhaps missing out on the cost effectiveness of web marketing provided by the other previous models. One cannot overlook the advantages of having work where the public expects to see it and a large web gallery could be more effective in terms of potential market size than a singular artist's own website or other marketing schemes.

Implications and Recommendations
There are important considerations a digital artist must make if they desire to attract serious collectors of their work. Mel, Helen, I and many others are aware of the confusion still reigning over the difference between a digital reproduction or giclee and an original digital art print. As stated at the beginning of this report, the general public understands and for the most part has accepted that inkjet technology has improved the quality of art reproduction. What remains clouded to many is the concept that artwork which was created originally using a computer is not a reproduction even though it is output or "materialized," shall we say, by using the exact same process, papers and inks used to make reproductions. But, if you wish to collect a premium price for your original digital artwork, it must not become lumped into or identified with the art reproduction market. The implication for art marketed via the web-based models is that the work will most likely be perceived to be reproduction or even poster art. Some galleries even refuse to show reproductions and if the gallery owner is not clear on the difference as it applies to original digital art, you may find yourself unable to show your work in that venue. Even if galleries are just unclear about this, by association, collectors follow suit in their disregard for original digital art prints.

What is needed within the current state of web based digital art marketing is a true understanding of this confusion along with the will and the technology to address it. For example given that the kiosk or web-based gallery/framing models do not currently provide a way for the artist to delineate an actual signature or edition number on the print, a new means of annotating original digital art prints may be in order.

Helen points out that she currently attaches a certificate of authenticity which describes her rational for issuing her prints with the notation of "Variant Edition." She writes: "As an artist-printmaker in the digital age, I want to be open to new developments in software, hardware and media. To remain adaptable I use the 'Variant Edition' (V.E.) system in which the artist commits to making a pre-determined and limited number of prints. The image will be fundamentally the same throughout the edition even though it may vary in size, could be on a different substrate and could be realized using a different technology; print prices will also vary accordingly. By not printing the entire edition at the same time I can, in real time, utilize an innovation such as a new media, an improved inkset or some yet undreamed of invention as it emerges."



ABOVE: (top) portion of Helen's Certificate of Authenticity with Variant Edition wording, (bottom) actual VE marking on front of work

What is important here is that artists interested in having their digital artwork considered along with other Fine Art must tread a narrow line between technological innovation and traditional modes of authentication. Helen's certificate of authenticity (which includes an embossed seal) goes a long way toward meeting this goal. But, if her work were to be marketed via the web could she be assured that the print provider would actually attach this notice to the print? It also becomes evident that an artist could not have more than one web based marketing and print provider without compromising the control of numbering and assuring that no more than the allowable number of prints are made toward fulfilling an edition. Finally, there still remains no way for her to actually sign the print.

Mel pointed out to us that there is within the tradition of Fine Art the practice of having a master printer sign the print accompanied by some other form of written documentation. Toward that end, the production of fine art digital prints, which do not pass through the original artist's hands, should adopt a procedure which documents and acknowledges the way in which the print is made and satisfies the requirements of control and documentation set forth by the tradition of printmaking.

It is feasible that an artist (working in conjunction with an Internet-based digital fine art marketer and print provider sensitive to the demands of Fine Art authentication) could achieve these ends by his or her attention to these four considerations? Let's enumerate them:

(1) The artist would provide his or her signature electronically as a visible part of the finished artwork.

(2) The web marketer/print provider would mark the print in the margin of the front surface using the nomenclature "V.E. 2/20 E.S. 6/9/2008" thus indicating that this is a variant edition (V.E.), the second print within an edition limited to just 20 prints (2/20) signed electronically by the artist (E.S.), and printed on a specific date (6/9/2008).

(3) A certificate noting the title of the art work, the type of paper, ink and printer used and the location and name of the print provider would then be attached to the back of each print.

(4) If a web-based print provider and marketing service has several printing centers in different locations, each center should be equipped with identical printing systems. It became evident to us in our testing that each manufacturer's best print is not necessarily the same print. And, while the variations between today's inkjet printing systems are generally within the acceptable limits of variations within a traditionally produced edition of prints, it is our experience that people expect more from digitally produced prints than they do from traditional means. The variations between prints that are acceptable and even endearing within the production techniques of traditional hand-pulled prints are not viewed with the same warmth as similar variations among digitally produced prints. This is especially true when trying to produce consistent prints on different papers. Until printer manufacturers adopt identical target color gamuts and inks or can otherwise work out some form of universal color matching and control, the need to offer digital print editions produced from identical equipment, inks and papers remains an important consideration for Fine Art.

Compliance with these four considerations would adequately cover what a collector or curator wants to know about the art they purchase or display and simultaneously provide consistency, authentication and provenance for the work. Until something like this is done, original digital art marketed on the Internet without some means of allowing the digital artist to sign, number and approve of each print will have a very hard time finding traction separate from reproduction or poster art markets and will not likely garner the price that such work deserves. Experience has shown us that despite all the remarkable innovations of digital technology curators, gallery owners and collectors of Fine Art are not going to give up their need for authentication, provenance and strict quality control.


ABOVE: "Cross Hatch Experiment" by JD Jarvis.

Open Door, Insert Foot
Aside from this, and as a final note, I will say that digital artists should not entirely ignore or shun web based printing and marketing. With the limitations of these web-based models in mind, it would be a shame for digital artists not to take advantage of the technological breakthroughs that have made their very artwork possible. If one is aware of how perception and the way in which art is marketed will effect sales and the resulting acceptance of the work itself, there is room for us to have our cake and eat it, too.

The current Internet marketing models do provide access to a large viewing population. Why not consider offering a specific set of one's work to these markets? Until the variables for authenticated sales of original art are fully established, develop some work that can be offered within the seemingly booming reproduction and poster art markets. Make a game out of gaining the exposure that these markets offer. Who knows, you may find enough success that acceptance on the part of the traditional Fine Art world will become a moot point. Of course, one can simultaneously retain "a line" of work that is produced using the master printer model and market it according to the existing traditions and expectations of the fine art print market. And don't forget there are web-based galleries that simply put the buyer in touch with the artist who retains the opportunity to follow traditional printmaking parameters.

As one defines a market and then creates or presents art that is customized for that specific market we migrate from being an "artist" to becoming a "designer." In many ways we already see this happening in our culture and within that rarified world of Fine Art, itself. The rise of the designer as a popular figure giving expression to our times cannot be denied. With a careful eye toward the expectations and needs of these various markets, both traditional and new, the final widespread recognition of the unique properties of original digital fine art cannot be far behind.

*Helen Golden creates her tra-digital/mixed-media fine art work by integrating computer art-making tools and traditional ones such as etching and photography. She is a pioneer in the digital art realm, exhibits in solo, curated and invited exhibitions and is cited in newspapers, magazines, books, television and on the internet. Her work is in private and corporate collections and has been accessed by the National Museum of American Art at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington DC. and she is a Laureate of the Computerworld Smithsonian Information Technology Innovation Distinction. Golden serves as an independent research consultant to graphic technology companies, was a co-founder of a digital collective and has worked as a curator, an artist-in-residence, gallery director and as a lecturer/educator. Her studio is in Palo Alto, California. She can be reached at:, website:

**Mel Strawn is a painter and printmaker, Professor and Director Emeritus of the School of Art, University of Denver. He was co-founder of the Bay Printmakers Society in Oakland, California in 1955 and has exhibited nationally since that time with work, including digital prints, in private, corporate and institutional collections. Working with large format digital prints since 1996, he started in 1981 exploring the fine art potential of digital media. His work is published in the Indian Directory of Electronic Arts (IDEA) CD volumes 6 and 7, and Gallery 119 (Boston) and on the World Printmakers site (Barcelona). Transitions, a printed personal account of his transition from traditional to digital media has been available for several years. His "White Paper" on digital fine art is accessible on the World Printmakers web site. He works in Colorado and is represented by The Sandra Phillips Gallery in Denver. His digital prints are shown there; he has also exhibited digital prints in Idaho, Washington, Oregon, California, Massachusetts, and Caracas, Venezuela as well as in various institutions in Colorado. His website information:,,

JD Jarvis holds an MFA degree in Video and Mixed Media ('75) and maintains a career in television production. He switched his artistic output from acrylic painting and drawing to digital printmaking in 1994 when he also began writing on topics related to digital art. In 2000 he was awarded an international prize for his digital artwork from Toray Industries in Tokyo and in 2005 co-authored "Going Digital: The Practice and Vision of Digital Artists" published by Thomson Course Technology as part of their "digital process and print" series. His articles and essays can be found at numerous websites and in "EFX, Art and Design," "Digital Output," "Great Output," and "New Mexico Collector's Guide" magazines. He became a member of the Creative's Advisory Council for Hewlett-Packard's large format printing program in 2006. He lives in Las Cruces, New Mexico where, along with his wife and fellow digital artist Myriam Lozada-Jarvis, they maintain their electronic studio. He can be reached at:, website:

^ back to top