Jonnek Jonneksson

Personally, when I photograph I am likely not sure of what exactly I have done so far with my frames, so, every next frame is a new story, a fresh and still unaffected attempt to make a better shot of the same subject.

Photojournalism, documentary, social photography... How do you define yourself professionally?

I define myself just as a photographer who is interested on every aspect of our everyday life. The selection of my working field as a professional wasn’t, as well, a conscious choice but a logical progress.

I realized one day that what I do with the camera is called documentary and/or photojournalism and the decision to direct my point of view to the professional field was something that had clearly to do with making a living.

I could say that if one day I win the lottery I will then stop spending my time and my energy trying to combine my point of view with the demands and boundaries of being a professional photographer, today. I don’t mean that this is not an interesting profession, on the contrary I like it a lot, but since I woke up with a camera in my hands just 5 years ago I feel that I need more to take photos than being involved to any industry.

If it is necessary though to announce my self with a title I think that I will choose the “documentary photographer” one.

Exploring, discovering and recording significant moments of our world is what I do and it would be a lie if I say that I am not interested of showing my findings around. I don’t consider myself as a savior or a devoted artist but I feel that if there is something interesting of mine that it could be a nice or useful idea spreading it to others then why not.

You always use analogue cameras. Why?

I started making photos with a digital camera and I feel that this helped me to understand the basics of pointing a camera around for a particular reason in a more sufficient and quick way than if I had started with analogue. However, I ended up working with film for reasons that refer to personal taste and superiority in some technical aspects.

Working almost 100% with black and white, I think that film is the way to go. In the beginning of my quest I found out that the combination of B/W and digital really sucks, it’s a weak substitute. The dynamic range and tolerance of the (negative) film is far superior to the digital.

There are a lot of photos of mine that couldn’t exist if they were made using the digital medium. I tend to use light with generosity and digital doesn’t seem to comply with that. I have to make always a lot of compromises using digital which, at least in my case, they affect the desired result and my creativity a lot.

Despite the fact that digital suppose to be quicker, cheaper and easier, I feel extremely tied up when I have to use it for professional reasons which refer always to speed of delivering the story, only. Regarding taste, I shall say that I like the aesthetics of film when I need to show things as they really are, from a photographic point of view.

I think that a photo made with film looks right, looks like photography while a digital one looks like an effort of software to reach photography. Well, I don’t know. If at some point digital manage to reach or even overcome the qualities of the analogue medium, then I can’t see why I have to insist on using it.

Anyway, Ralph Gibson said a nice and comforting think about that, when he has been asked for his point of view about digital during a recent interview. He said that the relationship that digital has to photography is the same with the one that videotape has to cinema. I think I agree with that.

Do you think digital photography has "stolen" the soul of photography with its immediacy?

No, I don’t really think so. However, I strongly believe that working with digital you can find yourself under the status of false confidence, something that usually is totally misleading.

This happens specially when you check this tiny monitor of the camera, shot after shot. Everything looks right in there and you feel that whatever it could be done working on a particular subject-moment is done. Expanding that a bit, I say that knowing that you have unlimited frames and this little monitor to check “what you have done so far”, you can be driven to a state of less thinking and more doing, when by “thinking” I mean those tiny moments between each shot where you suppose to study a bit how your instinct deals with uncertainty and by “doing” I mean pressing the button.

Personally, when I photograph I am likely not sure of what exactly I have done so far with my frames, so, every next frame is a new story, a fresh and still unaffected attempt to make a better shot of the same subject.

The sweet inconvenience of the unknown, which leads to pursuit for perfection, is surely a significant issue for me, and I don’t include any romantic parameters or the fashionable nostalgia that someone may apply to that aspect. However, the soul of photography can’t be really affected by the chosen medium, I have seen many significant photos and stories done with a digital camera as well as many crap done with film.

You shoot with a Leica M6. What can you tell us about this camera? What film are you usually use?

I use exclusively Kodak Tri-X always pushed to 800. I am kind of lazy and uncomfortable when it comes to experimentation with equipment, therefore when I feel satisfied with an item that I use I avoid to search for a better option which may demand a different situation.

That applies also for the M6 camera. It is a very simple tool that can deliver exactly what I want it to, with minimum bad surprises and overall volume. Leica optics are known for their quality and when I felt that SLR doesn‘t really work for me anymore as my everyday companion, the choices were likely few.

Now you live in Berlin. How do you see the level of photography in Germany?

There are a lot of good photographers in Germany who are never stagnant. Germany has certainly a significant place in the history of photography and there are always a lot of German-made stories going on.

This has to do with a tradition on conjectural arts that Germany has and also with the fact that Germans love to explore, to discover. They’re never sluggish.

Do you think the Europeans are really conscious of the disparities and conflict that exists in other areas of the world such as India or South Africa?

No, I don’t think that they are. The problem though isn’t about consciousness anymore but about simply acting and considering that today is easier than ever to act collectively, is very disappointing to realize that individualism is stronger than ever. Wealth and massive loads of information has made the westerns kind of skeptical and blase regarding what they could achieve using their voice and their position as a unity.

There are a lot of things going on right now in various places in the world which could be positively affected if the west spend less time in front of its monitor collecting information about anything and more time organizing various collectives with significant and common goals.

Everybody (specially the Europeans) is totally aware of everything that happens today but respectively not so active. I think we living at a time where although we are able to communicate and meet each other faster and better than ever by means of the technological progress, we are so distant as never before. 

 Consciousness is something that had always a strong social value but today seems to be difficult to decide what deserves to be considered as significant and what doesn’t.

It is a terrible paradox to think what could have be done if the big voices of the past had the communicational means that we have today, while today, where those means exist there aren’t any big voices anymore..

Can photography be a weapon against intolerance and social problems?

I think that there is a misunderstanding regarding the principals and responsibilities of photography. A camera cannot and should not be considered as weapon, in any case.

There are a lot of times though where a photo made a considerable impact to our community by giving us the opportunity to witness a significant situation or event which otherwise would stayed in the dark.

Photography can help our community to see and understand its social and environmental aspects but it cannot solve our problems. Photography could be an extremely useful tool but a tool needs always someone to use it, to operate it, it cannot make things happen by itself.

India, South Africa, Greece, Kosovo ... Which location will impact more on a personal level? 

Every place presents its own individual features, difficulties and social aspects for which it becomes interesting, fascinating or just unforgettable. I travel for photography rather than photographing while I travel and I think that this process gives me the opportunity to unveil the features of a place and to understand how things work there relatively fast.

My concern is not to feel the beauty of a destination via its particularities and its traditions or to have a good time during my stay but to dig as deeper as I can. The more that I discover the more satisfied I am, therefore the location’s impact refers to what exactly my film cans contain when I am back, rather to my collection of experiences.

Tell us about your work about the AIDS / HIV in South Africa.

The work over that issue took place during a totally irrelevant assignment. I was to S. Africa to cover the visit of...