Yes I’ve been having some conversations about this topic lately.
The IEC 61996-2-1 specification document clearly specifies a pure 2.2 power function as the EOTF of the display. The document specifies a different encoding function.
The encoding function uses an offset 2.4 power function with a linear section. This mismatch produces crunched shadows. The intention of this encoding was for flare compensation and to reduce quantization in the 8-bit code value world of 22 years ago.
In today’s world things are a bit more complex. “sRGB” monitors could be using a pure 2.2 power function as their EOTF, or could be using the piecewise function. In this world is it impossible to know which monitor a user will have. It is also pretty common for a normal user not to know which EOTF their monitor is using, or even what an EOTF is. This is why I have chosen to only include a pure 2.2 power function inverse EOTF in OpenDRT.
In this world maybe a good question to ask would be: “Which option looks better?”, or “which option is safer?”
#1: Image with piecewise inverse EOTF encoding
a. displayed on a pure power sRGB EOTF monitor (shadows crunched)
b. displayed on a piecewise sRGB EOTF monitor (as intended: linear light to display light)
#2: Image with pure power sRGB Inverse EOTF
a. displayed on a pure power sRGB EOTF monitor (as intended: linear light to display light)
b. displayed on a piecewise sRGB EOTF monitor (shadows lifted)
I my strong opinion is that option 2 is the safer and better looking in most common scenarios.