I used the example with Ross only to react to the sentament that Davis is creating myth or misinformation about the incident meter. The statement he makes is true----- using a full sunlight incident reading to determine exposure can result in shadows that are horribly underexposed.

I chimed in, but not as one who uses an incident meter with any regularity at all as I am completely in the "reflective" camp------metering the intensity of the reflected light that will actually be striking the film is far more intuitive to me and more important to my way of doing things. But in the BTZS way of doing things, it is obvious that the incident meter can be used with that system quite successfully. Any answer I gave toward those questions would be totally biased toward reflective readings with a spot meter.

So, the concept of "place" and "fall" is entirely different, to my mind, between the two methods, I place a luminance value, you would place a light intensity. I know exactly what to expect from that value in my negative and how it should render on the paper, the same idea with the "fall" of the highlight. I can see in my mind a print value for the "placed" luminance and the luminance of the "fall", and knowing the luminance of all the values in between helps to complete the visualization. For me, I can't predict or visualize the same for those luminances when only "placing" the light intensity of the shadow or just knowing where the intensity of the sunlight "falls".

As to question #2, again, relative to the spot meter, I would compromise next to nothing-----within the limits------of my tested system. Any luminances that "fall" below the "placed" value, are entirely precictable and thus ok with me, and any luminances that "fall" higher on the scale after the planned development scheme that favors the textured high value are also predictable. As far as other tools, dodge and burn of course (always, no negative is that perfect! when it comes to meeting the visualization, IMO), perhaps intensification of the negative, perhaps pre-exposure of the negative, etc......

Bottom line, I feel I can achieve the most optimum negative to meet the desired print by reflective metering than with incident, but that is just my feelings on it.