Yes, I think so, and sounds great.Originally Posted by Helen B
I think part of the issue here is the technique used in taking the incident reading. The usually-suggested method of pointing the incident dome at the camera tends to under-measure the intensity of light that creates the specular reflections, whereas pointing the incident dome at the light source (i.e. metering the light itself) takes that into account. It's rather like being aware of the solar disc in your peripheral vision versus looking directly at the sun.
The practical problem is that if the light source is the sun, the under-measurement resulting from the usual incident reading technique is extreme, and the light intensity is such that the highlight on film tends to spread/bleed into the surrounding area of the negative due, I believe, to failure of the anti-halation backing. As the print has an absolute maximum white value, the medium can't deal with the excess negative density, so all that is seen is the highlight and its bleed into the surrounding areas.
Although I haven't studied/tried the BTZS metering method, it seems to me that in situations (similar to that Noseoil confronted) that fall outside the usual range anticipated by the method, an additional meter reading needs to be added to the decision matrix - either a spot reading of the highlight, or an icident reading with the dome pointed at the light source (e.g. the sun in this case). Then, how one balances the exposure/development probably depends on which end of the luminence range one wishes to give precedence.