I really don’t know, is the quick answer. I think you need to find out for yourself.

But before you go along with adopting linear profiles like you are reading about on many websites and videos now, let’s consider the tonal response that happens when you apply a gamma curve, or leave the tonal range linear:

You can see that with Gamma corrected distribution the tonal range is evenly spread. With Linear, all the shadows and mid-tones are all compressed to the far left.

Since I am not a digital shooter, and have no living experience of working with linear files, I cannot advise you on what to use. But just looking at these graphs would indicate that working with linear profiles is not the way to go. You need to do some research because I don’t have the experience to let you know what is right. And the best research you can do is to experiment, rather than reading other people’s points of view.

I’ll let you into what I do though. I am looking for the flattest, low contrast file I can get. Because I am not a digital shooter, I use a film scanner to capture my transparencies digitally. What I do is make sure that the shadows and highlights are pulled right out at either end, so I’m not clipping anything, and set the mid tone exposure to the right. I end up with a very bright super soft scan of my transparency. Everything looks a bit washed out, but I have lots of shadow information and contrast is low.

If you like the look of my work, this is what I do to achieve smooth tonal scales across the image. I then ‘add contrast’ and I do it ‘locally’ to selected areas. Just by adding depth to one or two areas of the frame - the image begins to look very punchy, but in actuality, it is still mostly a very soft file. It is the contrast of going from these super soft areas of the frame to darker tones I’ve punched in that give the ‘perception’ that the file is punchy. Note that I said ‘perception’. The image still retains smooth gradations throughout, whilst also being punchy. This is impossible to do if you just add a contrast curve to the entire picture: everything may look deep and interesting, but you’ve applied hard tonality globally to the picture. This is not good.

So, what should you do?

Well, again, I am not a digital shooter and I do not have the experience of working with digital files. If it were me, I think I would work with a gamma corrected profile - such as Adobe ‘Neutral’ as a starting point, and even then: I would reduce the contrast a bit globally in RAW, before I begin work in Photoshop.

If you’d like to read more about gamma corrected profiles, and why they are good, then this article should do it.

You may also wish to read Alex Kunz passionate article about why he thinks linear profiles are not the way to go.

I am hesitant to publish this post, as I feel this is perhaps walking into sensitive territory with divided camps about which is best : linear or gamma-corrected profiles. Again, I am no digital shooter, but I hope that my explanation of what I do with my film scanning should give you an idea of how you should do the same thing in your RAW conversions. To me, I would use a neutral gamma corrected profile, reduce the contrast a bit more and adjust the exposure to give you an even distribution of tones around the frame, and open in PS to apply contrast and depth locally. That is in essence what I do with my film scans.