Gibar

I believe what you have there is banding, try editing your raw files in 16 bit before exporting the jpgs out as 8 bit. Hope it helps.

Retina Loc: Near Charleston,SC

I saw the very same thing with a JPG of the Milky Way which I processed with repeated alternating steps of increasing brightness and contrast. I just assumed it was an artifact of the compression algorithm with points of light in a dark field. I look forward to reading the other replies to see whether anyone has the explanation. This is also what convinced me of the value of working with RAW until the final step.

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

I have always thought that, after the first step in editing a RAW file, it is no longer a RAW file.

fantom Loc: Colorado

No. The RAW file remains the same in LR and the changes are non-destructive and saved as either a side car or as part of the saved jpeg.

Traveller_Jeff

That's a misunderstanding. When using Lightroom, the original RAW (or NEF) file is never touched. LR is called a non-destructible program, meaning the original file is left alone. LR builds on the file's attributes and allows you to manipulate those attributes, but not on the file itself. Afterwards, you can export the output to JPG, or any other file type you prefer, but the original RAW file is still there.

Retrobug

What was the ISO you shot these at?

I haven't had this particular problem. My experience with moire patterns was mostly from shooting half tones on an old stat camera. Usually a moire doesn't come from just one "screen", it comes from two "screens", one imposed on the other. The wavy, randomy look of the pattern in your photo does look like a moire, maybe caused by one random screen and one regular screen interfering? The question would be, where do two screens enter into this photo...

Your gull photo has pronounced noise that reminds me of a stochastic screen. If there were another "screen" hiding in the process of making the photo - maybe something digitally introduced by the camera at the time of taking - I wonder if they could have interfered to produce a real moire pattern?

I've seen one instance of a moire being produced by a graphic element in a photo interfering with a digital "screen." I have a photo of a tiger from a zoo taken with a 400mm lens at 400ISO on film. The tiger was confined in a cage with 2" or 3" wide metal screening that was very barely perceptible due to depth of field. You had to look very closely at a neg to see the out of focus cage screen at all, and when silver printed, no one ever noticed it (hilariously, people actually though i was in the cage with tiger). But when i scanned the film at 2700dpi, a crazy unremoveable moire happened that must have been from the very faint out of focus cage interfering with the digital 2700dpi screen. I don't usually think of a 2700dpi scan as a digital screen, so the moire surprised me. But I see now a real moire can happen from a graphic element in a photo interfering with a digitally created screen.

It seems to me at least plausible that this is a real moire caused by two interfering patterns. Can you try for similar lighting conditions and ISO and see if you can repeat the problem? Then change camera settings so the photo is processed differently by the camera? What do you think about noise being one of the elements?

Retina Loc: Near Charleston,SC

I don't know what you meant by that, but I am curious if it relates to a similar result from I described in another night photo. My comment had nothing to do with Moiré, only that I saw similar wide, curved banding patterns after treating SOOC files of the night sky as I described. I understand that the usual reference to Moiré in digital photography defines the artifacts caused when images of repeating, closely spaced lines almost align with individual sensor rows, much like the beat patterns used by piano tuners before the DSLR. If Moiré has anything to do with this example, my SWAG is it would be from multiple compression regions from JPG conversions overlapping each other in a way that shows up as bands. At least for me, it was a good enough reason, along with other experiences trying to salvage certain hues, to convince me that PP starting with a JPG definitely has its limits. It would still be interesting to read the explanation of the cause of these bands.

ButchS Loc: Spokane, WA

All digital cameras Used to have an anti-aliasing filter. The purpose of this filter was to make Individual Pixels slightly out of focus. This was to prevent moire.

Starting with the Nikon D800E, it became popular for cameras to have the anti-aliasing filter removed. This was intended to make the images sharper. But what you risked was the small chance of moire.

Current versions of Photoshop have a tool to remove moire.

The only cameras with no moire and no anti-aliasing filter are the Fujifilm X and GFX cameras. Fuji’s sensors have a pseudo-random pattern that prevents moire without a filter.

User ID

.

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

Fantom & Jeff & Retina- I did not explain myself well. I meant to refer to the resultant file existing after an alteration to the original RAW. I accept that the original RAW will remain untouched.