mark_onat

<p>Copyright should be enforced, but Fairey's case is a lousy example.</p>

<p>Update to October 2013. NatGeo YourShot is trawling for your images, with an exciting Oct 22 date, trading on the once-classic NatGeo name to draw you in for YOUR chance to maybe rise through the ranks of NatGeo.<br>

Then a quick search and sure, they're owned by FOX now, isn't that sad.<br>

So read down into the NatGeo documentation, and you find that 'YOU retain your copyright' blah blah blah,<br>

but NatGeo 'retains the right to market, distriubute your work in perpetuity to any third party' and nothing about what you'll get paid, etc etc.<br>

What's even more laughable is they have multiple categories, just like a stock agency. I thought the theme was 'Our Changing World' with this upcoming deadline, but it turns out you can upload ANY topical photo (as long as its top-shelf) and you can even submit entire STORIES to be distributed by NatGeo - oooooo, the honor, the prestige, the empty pockets, the feeling of humiliation upon realizing you just got jacked by yet another major media company.<br>

Oh well, maybe someday someone will start an agency worth a toss, and then they'll get bought out. So long, NatGeo. I knew you were compromised, but I didn't realize it was all over.<br>

I just wonder if any of the newbies who come on here asking starry-eyed questions about how to make money in photography are even made aware of these situations. Photo.net really should have a warning list.</p>

<p>try again</p>

<p>Corbis now owns Demotix outright. Do they now own all images they bought in perpetuity?</p>

<p>Photoshelter premium is $50 a month, so the difference between $100 per year and $600 is not insubstantial. Just don't upload your shots to one of the innumerbale ripoff websites permeating the web, including name online newspapers, who like, no expect you to work for free while their staff photogs and editors collect real salaries.</p>

<p>There are unethical agencies on the list of that website.</p>

<p>When you find an agency that isn't ripping photographers off these days, you let me know.</p>

<p>I've been going through a bunch of old slides shot with minolta and decent lenses in the 80s and 90s. The digital transition has been a bear, although I cant tell you how sick I am of scanning slides, especially when scanners don't do them justice, and it costs as much to buy a good scanner as a new D700. I'm still shooting Bronica 6x4.5 that looks gorgeous, but scanning again is the hangup. In a way, film from this era is going to be the survivor, because its a tangible object. There's rarely a dud in my roll of 15 MF images. Even mundane stuff is spectacular. I dont know why digital seems to go in the opposite direction and mute everything. Actually, I think digital does reasonable in overcast or at late midday rich sunny colors with polarizing. It seems to really fail at sunset and sunrise or fog or unusual lighting. Velvia will turn someone orange or red, but digital just blanks. It could be the chromatic abberation. Even when the colors are there, it looks flat. I see it in studio shots as well. Objects don't round out properly.<br>

Digital destroys my old film setup for action. I have no romantic attachment to film, but it just looks better for landscapes, light, studio and is more 3d, at least in the loupe, then it loses something in scanning. I kind of miss the resolution of direct slide to print making, but that had its pitfalls as well, and the customizability of pshop is irreplaceable, whatever purists say. I will say I'm much happier sending my prints out these days than doing it myself. Inkjet printers and toner refills are a ripoff to what a lab can do, and I dont have to do any labor or be responsible for errors. Still, film makes you a tighter shooter, but it isnt that. Film implicitly renders differently than digital, but we'll see what's up with my next body upgrade. I want the D700 because I own the sharpest 28mm prime Nikon ever made now. It's shot great with my F3, but I want to see it work its magic with full frame. Too bad the camera body is gonna cost an arm and a leg, and I'd hate to buy it just to hate it. A renting we will go.</p>

<p>I'm noticing a lot of resistance in pubart orgs and even photo galleries to giclee, or inkjet, and I doubt calling it anything different is going to change someone's mind. Maybe cibachrome or a classic b&w fiber print might be acceptable, but it's only about 1 in 15 purchases that are inkjets, vs paintings, other forms of printing, media like fabric, metal etc. The inkjet print in any form is a pariah except in cheesy tourist galleries at resorts, etc.</p>

<p>Well, I followed the advice here, and sold the rep a three-year license for he/she only to use the photos at presentations, not for publication, etc. The funny part was that the check they cut me was for more. Maybe the organization above the rep actually had a standard rate they pay for this kind of thing. Anyway, first time I've ever had that happen. It was a good xmas present.</p>

<p>great responses all. Thanks much. I'll post an update.<br>

M</p>

<p>Here's the rub.<br>

I was invited to a museum show. I took pictures of the event which was rather unique and included a unique first-of-a-kind audience and performance. I dont want to get into who it was.<br>

Anyway, the curator had not hired anyone to shoot the event. I know him through a friend and told him I had pictures. He saw the pictures and wants to use them in a presentation at the next stop on the exhibition's tour.<br>

Figuring I don't give my work away for free, I told him $175 for a one-time use, or I guess few-time use in his ppoint shows.<br>

He's asking me for clarification, saying it isn't publication, commercial use etc.<br>

I figure this guy should be lucky he has any documentation of what was an important night that he neglected to hire anyone to cover, and I'm offering a fair price, but this is standard fare, isn't it, photogs?<br>

Anyway, I'm wondering if anyone has ever dealt with the presentation side of licensing, etc. Am I in my rights? Or because I was invited to this event, somehow, the pics are theirs to use, which of course, they can't be, because they didnt hire me and no contract was signed, but they were taken on their property and their event. And no, I don't feel the need to hand him a freebie in the interest of prob non-existent future work.<br>

Thoughts?</p>

<p>Thanks, Mark</p>

 

<p>Dave,<br>

Thanks for your input. I'm pretty competent in photoshop, and I've yet to turn a digital image into Velvia. It's more than saturation and contrast, it's dimensionality. Velvia may exagerrate, but digital seems not real either. It washes out.<br>

Photography is by definition 2D and flat, but digital seems to make it more so. Also, forget about shooting with the sun/disc in the frame in digital. I would just say that film is more forgiving of variable light situations, and digital only renders well in the best (and controlled) light.<br>

Of course, digital is great for convenience and utility. I'm not saying I know why. It's just that landscapes come up short in digital. As far as film snobbery goes, I'm the biggest anti-purist out there when it comes to style and photography in general. However, you don't want your base quality going backwards, and digital often gives that impression, and that's just in shooting. The printing side of the equation has serious troubles of its own, including preposterous toner costs. I would not mind having my Cibachrome back.</p>

<p>Also, people diss Rockwell more than is necessary. He seems like a good photog, and his website has been a valuable resource to me on many occasions. I hadn't seen this comparison, but it confirms what I've been thinking. People always said Velvia was a pleasant exaggeration of reality. Well, digital is an unpleasant video-ized washing out of reality. Some of the blurring in these examples is horrifying.</p>

<p>I might start a thread of my own, but I'll just start here. I just got back 36 slides of Velvia 100 back, and it has me wondering all over again. A friend gave me his Nikon F3 (he had 2), and I researched the best lens I could afford, the 28mm f2.8 prime Nikkor from the 80s, and bought it used for $275. (rockwell's review of this lens agreed with others on its great quality and value). I've got a B+W polarizer on it. Bottom line, this setup DESTROYED my digital results. I was floored looking at these slides. Deeper dark colors, huge contrast, sharp vegetation, and most importantly to me, seeming 3-dimensionality, foreground to background. Landmarks that seem shaped, as opposed to flat.<br>

It seems with my digital shots, I'm getting 20% good, and with the film, I'm getting 80%. Of course, I'm lazier with the digital, but not to this degree. Overcast pictures in digital always look like trash. WIth film, most are good. In situations that are half cloudy and half sunny, it seems like film brings together the disparities, and digital screw up part of them .Film actually seems far more tolerant of disorder in natural lighting. I wish I could quantify it, but I can't. Maybe this is the first decent glass I've owned, and it will work great on a D700, which I don't own. Of course, I prefer the lower cost (not of cameras) of digital, and the freedom. Still, why do the pictures look so much more worthless when shot on digital? Why isn't there a standard explanation out there? It has little to do with resolution, it has to do with the overall look.</p>

<p>Great discussion. Please do start more like this one. I've been coming to the realiazation that there are reasons to why photography is a step-child to painting. One, it is 2D, and painting is 3D. Two, it is created all at once, and captured en masse, not created from scratch, developed and redone. Therefore, it is by nature less controlled. Third, and I know this will cause harumphs, it is basically the same look across the mass of participants, in that pixels all look the same, regardless of the subject matter. Painting offers no guarantees, but more chance of a unique personal style.<br /> I'm not saying no photography is art, but at least half of its artists are recorders of history and unique situations, and the others have been excellent practioners of movements that also existed in painting. The bw nude is OVER. Many started it, and Mapplethorpe took it to its logical conclusion. Ansel Adams, Curtis and other finished the bw large format landscape. Its over. I dont care if you took your 8x10 camera into the wilderness. The pictures are nice, but they can't touch Turner, or Van Gogh, or Monet, or Wyeth, or 1,000 lesser known landscape painters. I like shooting landscapes as well, but when I look at others, I could not care less. Wow, its sharp. Is that all you got? Sometimes there's a lot going on. Then I see a giant fantasy landscape in a museum, and I wonder where I've been living. Get off the internet and into a museum and see real artwork. See the preciousness and reality of a handmade object.<br /> The only thing new to photography is photoshop and possibly 3d, which really isnt photography, but it sure isnt painting. Photo purists, including most of the photo establishment, will not show this work, and they will not push it. Some of it is excellent, most of it is very gimmicky, so its hard to blame them, but the purists are going headlong into such boring work its, well, the same old story of the last 20-30 years. You ever get that feeling when you look at native american or african or egyptian art that the stuff is actually, truly art? Well, it's because its handmade, and has a tradition beyond the literal recording of reality. The reason B&W has power is because its an abstraction. You're at least one step out of reality. This is not to say color can't be powerful, but as powerful as Dali, Picasso, Rembrandt, Goya, Jacob Lawrence, Jim Woodring? The answer is sorry, buddy, no. You think your limited edition run of 100 inkjet/giclees (color copies as my painter friend calls them) can ever be as valuable as one solitary oil painting? Depends on your name, but still.<br /> Some photog has to be able to innovate, and the only ones I've seen might as well be illustrators their work is so transformed. I think some of this is new art, but the purists dont agree with me. Everyone's saving up for their $5k dSLRs and $125 toner cartridges (you need to buy 8!). So a hotel can buy the work? Oh yeah, that industry is in the dumps right now. At least the purists have it right that film and darkroom prints are authentic and have known half-lives. This is a horrific contradiction in the middle of a medium. The fact is that its easier to buy equipment and fiddle with it than put in ten years getting the training to be an artist.<br /> Sorry folks, not trying to be cranky. Just trying to think this stuff through. Photography may be a great vocation, but you are just making pretty pictures. Almost no photog is making durable art. Of course, almost no painters are either. It just seems that a from-scratch medium has a better chance of getting something deep and personal that impressed people with true skill than a machine that promises to make it easy and ultimately doesnt. Its like guitar hero vs learning guitar.<br /> The analogy of Michaelangelo and his brushes is so spot on.</p>

<p>Five years ago, I bought a Canon EOS lens 28mm f2.8 $275 (rated above average, not the best, but not the worst in that common focal range) and an 85mm F1.8 $450, a very highly rated lens. WHile I found the colors, tone, and bokeh of the 85mm to be fantastic, it was not as sharp a lens as I had hoped. The 28mm was worse than a Sigma I used to use on my Minolta film camera. It was terrible. This was on an EOS film camera. I've gone to Photozone.de and very few Canon lenses are ranked very high for sharpness. A lot of their tests reveal a lot of disappointment. Since I was new to Canon and NIkon, I went to Nikon and haven't looked back. I sold my Canon glass used, and got 50% of list back, so no biggie.<br>

Plus old Nikon manual glass will fit on Nikon digitals. From what I understand, the same is not true of Canon. As far as I'm concerned Canon is a lot of hype and expense, because medium format kicks them both for sharpness, unless of course we're talking the high end $5k cameras which I can't speak to. I've picked up some old Nikon lenses that as sharp as a tack.<br>

That's been my experience.</p>

<p>To me, art is a mix of technique and originality - its really hard to be a memorable artist without both.<br>

Before the digital age, experimentation with composite or transformed photography was rare enough to be art - now it is common enough to be almost embarassing. I still see people turn art out of treated photography, but they are practically painting, and the gimmicks feel like gimmicks, and then the next week, 2000 people have figured out how to copy that gimmick. This doesnt mean untreated b&w photography is art either. We've all seen the fifty million Adams, Mapplethorpe ripoffs. We've all seen just another show where some budding photog shows us their nudeforms. Been there, done that.<br>

Painting always has and still has the advantage of being created from scratch, being a unique object (hugely important), and in the hands of a master, being an individual statement, backed up by technique that the vast majority people dont have and KNOW they dont have. People look at photography and can say 'he got lucky' even if the photographer is a master of the medium. I'm not saying the layman's opinion should rule, but these are impressions we've all heard. Photographs are also 2-dimensional, and paintings are reinterpretations of 3D space.<br>

Value applies to the struggles of historic photographers like Adams and Curtis, who dragged around tons of materials and caught particular moments. The most artistic photography for me lately has come from war zones, because the subject matter is so dramatic and beyond belief. This is photography's main strength, to capture the moment, and the remote, and the rare. It is really about capture, not creation. Sorry, the studio is creative and technical but it's still not original 99.9% of the time, and the same objects still look the same.<br>

Digital photography has taken the last vestiges of photography's elitism away. 20 years ago, you could shoot slide film in a nikon or hasselblad or leica and instantly be ahead of the public, but the public has been given, and figured out their way in. Sure, most of them are still hacks, and dont know the basics, but a surprising number are good, and I have seen work, both commercially and artistically surprising on this website.<br>

The main problem for me is that when I look at a Sargeant painting, or a Van Gogh, or Rembrandt, Miro, Dali, Picasso, or a living painter Arreguin I saw lately, there is simply no contest. I know there are great photographic artists like Man-Ray, and Uelsmann, but their work just seems quaint in comparison. Photography is too literal and too flat. Great painting is great art because it is the complete distillation of someone's creativity with nothing in the way. Something about the process also garners instant respect.<br>

In a world where we are bombarded with visual stimulant, personality is mandatory in art, not just for part of it, but ALL of it, like in a painting style. It may even be instinctive, since drawing and painting have been with us for millenia, and mechanized work just doesn't grab us the same. I'm saying this being a total anti-purist and anti-luddite, because artists always create originality of what's newest, but in this case, immersing yourself neckdeep in technology may not work. Besides, video and motion pictures are the real technology stars. Photography occupies this lot in between where its not as flashy as the motion picture, and not as legitimate as raw painting. And out roll the photographers at every fireworks show and every concert (something I've really had enough of). Photography is a joke and a pariah. Pictures of photographers behaving badly would make a more interesting show than what they shoot.<br>

Photography has real trouble as art. It is amazing as part of history, and will continue to be so. Some teen's camera and some pros camera will still capture history, and eventually it will be different enough to be called art, but making great art on the order of painters out of photography would seem to be impossible.<br>

The list of great painters and sculptors is so much longer than that of photographers as great artists that the case seems closed. Then again, I look at the work of Helmut Newton and I think art, but I see lots of people shooting work nearly that great and it's just too common these days. Better and more ubiquitous camera gear has resulted in more and better photographs, but its still just 2D reality. Its not anything personal or new.</p>

<p>what galleries are selling these photo prints you speak of? It seems that arts agencies and galleries are buying chemically produced prints and multimedia of other printing methods because inkjet or giclee (is this anything other than archival injet renamed?) are everywhere and of unknown archival quality.</p>

<p>I've had pictures up at istock and made a whopping $4 for six downloads, but I dont see that money until I reach $100 and, what really irks me, I DONT KNOW WHERE THE PICS ARE GOING...so NO TEARSHEETS FOR THE PORTFOLIO, plus they have some new agreement that probably makes all images royalty-free, so its pretty much ridiculous doing business with that company. I will say, however, that there are a couple of topics I've researched where images might move enough to get you in the $500-1k and up range per image, but I'm unsure. The other thing is that the royalty, or 'extended license' is royally unclear. Basically, the way I read it, once you check a box, you might get $75 for an image you agree to end up on a poster that could sell millions worldwide. You write off mechanical royalties. This is robbery of the highest order, but if you sign the agreement, then you suffer. I think these companies should be sued over these minimum pay schemes, and refusal to notify. They must have sold millions of images without paying out a dime because people like me bail before they make the minimum. That's just plain fraud.<br>

If you dont understand this, you might put up a pic you are really proud of and get no downloads or hand it over to someone for less than a dollar. Once I saw the pay, I yanked all but a few pattern images off of the site. Anything unique with people and odd situations, I pulled because I wasn't about to get paid snot for it. So a couple of shots, which still took two days of production have stayed up and a few more downloads have come in, but I'm not even making $1 an image. its really quite mind-blowing. Other than the 1% of the time where they might make you money, they are a horrid group of amoral suitgeeks getting rich trafficking off of slave wages to people who create and execute things they themselves are incapable of. I dont even like to add links to microsites on a photo portal I run, so that tells you what I think of them. You can make more money off of putting your own photos on the net, drawing traffic and selling adspace on your website than you will from the microstocks. Or peddling home-printed cards at a Sunday market. It really is that horrific. Microstock needs to be run out of business by a total photographers boycott.</p>

<p>I joined istock about two years ago, all full of enthusiasm for the idea. I spent the day shooting fireworks, staking out the position, bringing a decent camera, annoying my gf by staying put and fending off crowds. I took some great pics, and uploaded them to iSuckyourblood. I sold four copies of three different images for around $3.50 total. When I saw that number, I alternated between angry and sick. I made 2k off a studio poster shot not long ago. I charge a dayrate for assignment work for engineering and construction companies.<br>

You should see the rates they charge the govt. It isn't even $1 a minute....Here's the kicker - i spent the better part of two days keyworking and uploading and going through their snotty screening process, through which I passed a variety of imagery - people at work, etc etc...the fireworks were all that sold. They didn't move most of the images they accepted and gave editors picks to. They just sat there.</p>

<p>Anyway, I don't get to see any of the money til i get to $100, so the images that went I GAVE AWAY. I yanked most of the images I really cared about. If you check a box, they basically can farm your image out to Chinese poster manufacturers for about $75. That's all you get if they run a million copies. Here's the better part - THEY WON'T TELL YOU WHO BOUGHT IT - no tracking, no tear-sheet, no nothing.</p>

<p>I looked up a guy who had 30,000 downloads over the last three-four years. You're thinking, hey, that's a lot...but that's at best 25k over three years of fulltime work for either the photog or him and an assistant. i see images I would put in a gallery with models, setup, lighting, make-up, wardrobe, and, maybe they get 30 downloads...</p>

<p>Call me lazy, but I'm not busting my rear for three years with the idea that I 'might' make a pittance off this ripoff website, which is real glossy. About a year ago, I had a couple of designers tell me over drinks about this incredible website istock where they could buy stock photos for NOTHING...they kind of looked sheepish when they remembered my work as a photographer. Well, kiddies, istock is in video and audio, too. Your line or work is next for devaluation at the hands of microsnots.</p>

<p>I personally think every creative person alive should boycott both them and getty. Its not worth getting angry or depressed about. Some photography isn't worth much, but they aren't taking pictures of stop signs. They're driving down the worth of photography across the board. Those royalties pay desperate people in Turkey and India. I take quality images every week, and I will just choose to take them elsewhere.</p>

<p>$1 for a full-page image is not respect. Not being able to see your image published is flat-out rude, and blatantly siding with their client while they massage you and sweet-talk you with a bunch of bs incentives. Let the buyers buy. Anybody of quality will not stay there, unless they have assistants. There are other agencies who grade your sale on its use. istock is a very, very foul company, and Getty is knuckling people under as well. I dont accept sweatshops wages for shooting or retouching or web design, but stock photo is different?</p>

<p>Just thinking about them makes me livid their making money off the backs of others, and wrapping it in a pretty bow. Actually, i did see one possible money-making angle through istock, but its only a hunch that may dry up tomorrow. Otherwise, they are satan incarnate, and its much mellower to just not have them in my life.</p>

<p>I've scanned a few thousand slides probably and its not something I care to EVER do again. Even four on a loader, and paid to do it on my own time at my own place, its not that bad, but its also not that great either. Of course, sorting through hundreds of digital photos, versus the selectively taken film shots, is labor-intensive on its own, but there really isnt any comparison.<br>

I still shoot medium format film, but my 35mm gear wasn't anything to write home about, so its been replaced by a Nikon dSLR which leaves my film camera so far behind in functinality and lighter weight and ease of use its ludicrous. It can make you lazy, but sorting through dreck will make you sharpen up again. I do remember getting 36 Fuji Velvia slides back, and most being exciting, so I'm pretty sure something has been lost, but its really hard to quantify. Its certainly not sharpness, but it is drama. Then again, I shot a lot of my slides in dramatic light, and certain films had their bugaboos, as well. I really miss Scotch 1000 though, and its Pisarro-style impressoinist grain. Other films tried to match it and failed, and the film was discountinued for being FAULTY. What's lacking in digital is this kind of chance to throw in a roll for a different style.<br>

Unfortunately, medium format is not cheap to get scanned, and the Nikon 2k scanner you can buy to do it home is about 4ooo x 6000 dpi, equalled by hi-end dSLRs. I do like the slide as an object. In the future, every slide of any worth may actually be considered a piece of mini-art on its own, especially as more and more hit the landfills over the years.<br>

Having fretted about this a lot, there are other considerations. Photos are getting harder and harder to sell outside of being hired to shoot, so your shot setup matters more than which medium its on. There is a quality to digital that looks flat and dried-out to me, but when the lighting is really good, digital gets a whole lot better, just like film. That said, I remember some slide film rescuing average shots, and making them BETTER than reality. Maybe this was me being a tighter shooter...tough to say. Its also a color thing to me. I know B&W purists may shudder, but I've been pretty happy with the B&W setting on my DSLR. Often times more so than the color side.<br>

Catching great outdoor light, or creating pro light indoors prob matters more than shooting on digital or film at this point. Of course, shooting into sunsets or foglight with digital really doesnt look good, but who wants anymore sunset pics? I've seen where digital definitely has less latitude. Otherwise, with the right filters, which I see tons of people not using, the results are really pretty good. Its just the great light, shot, and non-trite subjects or excellent creative models that elude us, not the materials we're using. I've looked at the Sigma SD14 and it does seem to recapture some of that lost zest. I looked at Nikon D3X samples and I didnt get the same feeling, but the pictures were seriously average examples.</p>

Umm, yeah, microstock isnt that bad....hmmm..well I suppose istock is way better than the sites where you just

dump your images into a royalty-free black hole. istock reviews your images, so its not like you can put junk up

- they really do expect the best. I had editors choice images of lifestyle and food and scenics and action, and

the only thing that sold was a specialty.

 

This specialty took a good deal of setup and experience. I sold five downloads of two different pictures. My

balance is $4.30!

Of course, I sort of gave up when I saw the first payment, which I wont see until a $100 balance. Somone should

sue them

on that policy.

 

That's LESS than a dollar a download. Unlike many other agencies, istock wont tell you where the image goes, so I

cant even get a portfolio piece out of the deal. I have no idea where these pics went. Plus, if you want to give

your pic away completely, all you have to do is punch the sucker box, and VOILA, your picture could be replicated

on 100k posters in China and you will never see a dime in royalties....and if you're thinking your pictures are

going to be downloaded 10000 times, dream on, I've only seen a couple of images break the 200 downloads mark.

They have images that are great enough to showcase. Click on them, and see how many downloads - sometimes only 30

downloads and 1500 views. That's $25-50! and for studio setups with makeup, props, and models. Seriously, this is

beyond surreal.

 

The top photogs on there have 20-30k downloads, ok, Well, we're talking say 25k dollars for 3 years of solid

work? Maybe assistants make it quicker, but I dont know why a pro assignment photog would even bother.

Keywording, getting reviewed, etc...yadda yadda.

 

I have had web designers brag to me about how great istock is, and then the next word under their breath is how

do the

photogs make any money?

 

Photogs who use istock have already destroyed the value of photography. If they want to do it, cool, Dont come

crying when you have to get a real job.

Thanks much for the responses. I know it varies person to person, so more posts are welcome.

Im doing my inkjet

printing at a local

darkroom rental

place that has a

7600 and a broken

9600.

I'm trying to do a

comparison of costs

versus me buying the

9880. I can't find

any

numbers to

estimate how many 30

x 40" prints I'm

likely to get from a

rack of these ink

cartridges. I

understand this is

not exact, but there

must be some kind of

general estimate.

Are the 9880s more

efficient

at retaining the

ink, and not wasting

as much as

I've heard others

do?

Any help would be

greatly appreciated.

I print mostly

color. If anyone

wants to outline the

extra costs

associated with

buying this printer,

that would be great

as well. Thanks.