Since I am switching fro a Jobo to BTZS tubes I sat down and decided to reread my copy of Beyond The Zone System (BTZS) by Phil Davis. In the past, when I have read his book I have dismissed parts of it as overcomplicating the zone system. However, my primary dislike was Davis' preference for incident metering. First, I am a big fan of my Pentax digital spotmeter. I just can't seem to understand how an incident meter could work for every situation. For example, lets say that I was taking a picture at Yellostone's famous Artist Point overlook. Now the overlook is heavily shaded by trees. However, the waterfall in the distance is illuminated by the morning sun. Not being able to move from the overlook towards the point, how could you meter with the incident system to determine the contrast (SBR) of your scene? Second, one thing I do like about Davis' BTZS method is that he includes the printing paper's testing into the system. THis is not to say that Ansel didn't, as his book The Print includes a section on testing paper. However, Davis argues that one should start with testing the paper and work backwards to produce a negative to fit. Ansel seems a bit more general in producing a negative that targets grade 2 and is adaptable to a variety of papers. Thus, perhaps the question is how specific do we need to be for variable contrast papers? I can see that one might argue for tighter controls with AZO or alt processes; however, do we need to be this tight with variable contrast silver paper? The zone system is so elegant and simple. Why would I want to complicate it by carrying a PDA with exposure software? With the zone system I can meter the shadows and the highlights, calculate the exposure and development, adjust for filters and/or bellows, and take the picture. I can do all this in my head, what could be simpler? So, how many people here actually use Davis' system exactly as he designed it?