Also, I'd like to know values for placements and as a reference point for the future. For instance, under sunny 16, I've had blown clouds and dark shadows. I found it good for narrower ranges of values, but I'd like something that allows me to work my way, and give me more usable information for my vision. Since I spend sometimes a longish time making an image, I'd rather stick to something quantified.
As for trying to "achieve" accuracy, it's not so much a destination. It's something I like to have as a point of reference and a tool for placements.
Why should analog photographers owe the viewer a complete technical break down of the time, place, equipment, processing, along with the intent for, taking, making, producing, creating, capturing, snapping, clicking the "subject" or "thing" in the film path? The image means nothing, it's the Triangle-BQ film rated at blah, blah, blah, in a Nikobladcoronette with a Petxitol lens after a sandwich and coffee during a 1000 feet climb up a mountain side. And having just shaved and wearing an Earney Foss backpack with a Woodpost tripod and a shimrron head at precisely 12 noon GMT on the blah, blah, blah.
Remember, document, document, document!
Mr. Blanksky could have said it better!
I like to understand why a shot may have been made, the conversation or story can be quite interesting and a learning experience itself. The technical details, AKA chatter as Adams called it, don't matter to me. If I want to know more about the technical stuff, knowing what value was placed where is nice. Actual aperture, speed, film, developing, developer, paper, etc can be too big a bog for me to get trapped in. That's my take, I'm just another voice in everyone's head vying for attention.