[QUOTE=CPorter;1317181][QUOTE=baachitraka;1317108]One thing which is not so clear for me is how incident metering can ensure good shadow detail or am I confused/worry little too much?

I would say that you are not necessarily giving too much concern, there's a definite pitfall to using an incident meter and obtaining good shadow detail, and you would be wise to know it. So, how it's used definitely makes a difference.

When every element within the scene is evenly lit by the same light source, then the incident meter provides a worry free, pretty reliable exposure setting. The big limitation of incident meters is that the full scene you are photographing should to be evenly lit by the same light source, obviously sunlight and shadow don't fall into that description. So wise use of the meter is called for. The following was scanned from one of my book sources (The AA Guide Book 1 - Basic Techniques of Photography by John P. Schaeffer) to show the pitfalls of using an incident meter.

From left to right, please excuse the poor scan, the actual text example is much better:
Picture 1, Alan Ross has the dome of the incident meter in direct sunlight, overall picture is underexposed

Picture 2, Ross has the dome of the meter in shade, overall picture is over exposed

Picture 3, Ross has the dome of the meter in "lightly spotted sunlight", the exposure is satisfactory

Picture 4, is a picture showing a reflected light reading from the camera's built-in meter, the exposure is about the same as that in Picture 3.

The bottom line is that the incident meter can't make up for deficiencies in exposure for the highlights and shadow areas when the meter is squarely placed in one light level vs. the other.
Makes perfect sense..which brings me to mention Phil Davis and BTZS, and the use of incident metering to determine subject brightness rage. Of course, testing is involved to develop accordingly (of film and paper), but it sure makes printing easy and a pleasure.