I know where you were trying to go here and although Photography and Sound share many terms for instance Signal to Noise Ratio and Dynamic Range in this case you missed a few points. Your first three points are highly agreeable, but where Photography becomes different or more complex is when you for instance are different types of photography like if you shoot landscape photography. In landscape photography, you can't shoot it as a low F-stop number and hardly get great results because your entire goal here is to increase your resolution by increasing or raising your Q value (half your Q value) to get everything from your minimum point of focus to everything behind it or infinity, so you are not going to shoot landscapes at F1.2 - F4.0, (too much light) so you are not going to lower your Q Value, you are going to raise it For Landscape Photography you are shooting F5.6 -F9 or F11 depending on your lens. Shutter speed (which is an extremely important value for resolution, especially for the low light situations or to control ambient light by riding (controlling it depending on conditions) the shutter when the F-stop needs to remain constant) is what is used to compensate by keeping the lens open longer, especially when using Neutral Density Filters to gather more light to increase resolution. Shutter speed controls (even though it's talked about to stop or slow-motion) light as well, especially when f-stop or aperture is constant, like when it's bright and you have a white sky and you increase your shutter speed to add more blue into a bland sky. Iso is also a factor for increasing or decreasing the Q Value, but it is technically applied gain after the exposure. In Portrait/Sports Photography your argument is more valid (if you are shooting flowers this would be fine to blur the background by increasing the light, therefore lowering the Q Value and getting more resolution. Photography also relies heavily on Shutter speed, which controls how long the shutter is open, which will increase the Q Value or lower it depending on the type of photography that you are doing. As far as the room over pressurizing a small room and not having enough pressure, I agree. Making analogies like this is not always easy and I know where you were trying to go with it as photography for example, but it isn't totally accurate, but I appreciate your effort and knowledge.
I believe the saying that applies to this situation is not seeing the forests for the trees. It is not a micro level comparison. It is a macro level comparison to illustrate resolution using a different approach..
@@AcousticFields I believe that when using analogies to make a point, those points should be clear and concisely thought out, which is why I said audio and photography are very similar and almost interchangeable with terms like Signal to noise ratio and Dynamic Range, but to use terms that are not accurate due to not understanding the full aspects of photography only act to lose your point not stress it. Not trying to pick an argument. I just would have used another analogy or stopped at a point of your own understanding, or as that saying that’s more appropriate to this situation goes about beating a dead horse, but I do appreciate what you are trying do here and I think you have made your point on this topic very clear in your other examples.
It is just pressure and reflections. Everything else begins with these two paradigms. Just stay focused on those two variables. Pressure is < 100 hz. Reflections > 100 hz. Pressure is sound waves. Reflections are sound rays. Room modes are pressure based issues. Reverberation is reflected energy.
Most of the belief systems that people adapt when it comes to small room acoustics are not founded in science. To be honset, I do not where the foundation, if any exists. It appears to be a blend of marketing speak and ignornace regarding the hard science of physics on the part of the consumer and even the professional. We are try to bridge gaps between marketing speak and misinformation.
