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.
My workflow
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. This smoothens out the tonal scale, and also avoids clipping anything. Most importantly it produces a very soft tonal range. I also set the mid tone exposure towards the right to get the overall exposure of the picture where I need it. 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 smooth tones. 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 ‘perceived’ contrast of going from these super soft areas of the frame to darker tones that I’ve punched in that gives the the image depth. 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.
For more information on Gamma & Linear profiles
If you’d like to read more about gamma corrected profiles, and why they are used, 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, and gamma corrected ones are still the right choice.
Parting thoughts
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.
My aim is to get a file that has very soft gradations throughout it, and has gamma corrected tonality throughout. This allows me to maintain the smooth gradations while I punch in depth to selected areas of the file.