P.S. The answer to this thread was very simple: If the white shutter ends up at the density that will produce the zone on which it was placed when printed "normally, then you are calibrated.
In other words, if you aim at something with the intent to hit it, and then you hit it, your intent has been achieved. It is as simple as that.
Now we have moved into arguing minutiae of diction and other things. From my POV, the argument is to prevent the system from being understood in a mishmoshed way.
The way it is being described by Mr. Lambrecht is a combination of the tonal placement aspect of Adams' practice with another approach, which states that each separate combination of film and development time is looked at as a tool that captures the luminance range at the scene in a unique, non-linear, way. With this approach, the concepts of place and fall are different, and are dependent on the S curve chosen to capture the scene, not on a theoretical, perfect, linear exposure scale. That is fine and works perfectly (in fact, better, IMO), but it is not an accurate description of the zone system as explained by Mr. Adams, which is the argument that Mr. Lambrecht is making. With Adams' zone system, films are manipulated in the testing stages such that they are as linear as possible in the zone I - VIII range, and then used. With the other method, films are not manipulated in the testing stage at all, but simply analyzed. I am not arguing that one is any better than the other (thought I do not think that manipulating, rather than analyzing, in the testing stage makes the most sense for most applications, nor do I think that the zone I - VIII range is the best range in which to shoot for linearity; I prefer the zone II - VIII range). I am just arguing that the two are being combined in Mr. Lambrecht's explanation of "fall".
...and yes, Q.G.. The problem is not the system itself so much as the unexplainable confusion that surrounds it. I don't get it, except to say that it just clicks with some people, and not with others. It works when (and because) it is simple, quick, and easy to employ. If it is not any of those things; if it does not "click"; if you do not "get it", then it is of no use to you. There are other ways to expose and develop your pictures that will work just fine, if not better. There is absolutely no shame in that. It is just one way of explaining and quantifying something that photographers have done since before Mr. Adams was even born. A tool is only useful to you if it is useful to you. You need to pick one that, as the most important element, makes perfect sense in your mind; that you fully understand and can employ quickly and accurately. I don't get the idea that the system must be learned and employed at all times by all photographers for them to be doing the "right thing".
For purposes of this thread, I am answering the OP in regards to the Adams zone system, regardless of whether it is perfect or not. It is what the OP asked about, and what he is learning to employ at this point, so the more clear this particular take on it can be made, the better. Mushing it together with other outlooks on the system, while it will work perfectly in practice, will in fact make things less clear and harder for the OP at this stage IMO.
