VTMatwood Loc: Displaced Vermonta in Central New Hampsha

ISO 100... I would not expect that to generate a lot of noise, hence my surprise at the amount in the image.

RichieC Loc: Adirondacks

I think this is an example why they still make graduated filters, note the sky is properly and nicely exposed, the foreground must have been darker. With a lee or similar filter holder, you could position the graduation at the top of mountains- not suggesting it is required- but that is why there is still a market for them. I am assuming here of course. The other way is to bracket for sky then foreground, then combine images in PP... would require a tripod though, photoshop or similar and some skills- but not difficult.

When posting the NEF or Raw Image... or even a layered PhotoShop (.psd ) file, all that will show is an underlined link, no preview of the image. It is there and downloadable though.


See YOUR image's EXIF data below, (note web address to get exif data - try it!-= save it for future reference!) at 1/2500, F8 and -1.0 Compensation further "compensating" for a non-blown out bright sky... foreground at sunset must have been dark- I am guessing almost black...

And really that lens may not be the best for this sort of work. Lots of glass in it. Great for other things though, and obviously it works... just will never be the sharpest. And long lenses "compress" landscapes, where wide angle expand them - giving you a sensation of depth. IMHO

http://exif.regex.info/exif.cgi

(Download)

htbrown Loc: San Francisco Bay Area

If there has been no post, I don't know where the banding came from. I'll defer to others on the list who may know better.

I use bracketing and blending for high-contrast scenes, but you need a tripod to avoid headaches. The only HDR software I have used is Photomatix, and I have been disappointed in the results. A good deal of that is, I suspect, due to the fact I don't know how to use it to best advantage. Lately I've been using luminosity masks in PS, and am much happier with the results.

Madman Loc: Gulf Coast, Florida USA

Does this abnormality show up in the RAW (un-processed) image? Did you perform a sharpening process?

I am wondering, if the RAW looks correct, at what point in the post processing does this problem appear?

I've never seen this in images from my D7100 so I am puzzled.

Manglesphoto Loc: 70 miles south of St.Louis

This was also my thought .
Why Shutter speed of 1/2500. I would think at ISO 100 the shutter speed would be very much slower.

htbrown Loc: San Francisco Bay Area

Something's not adding up for sure. The EXIF says 1/2500 sec, f8, ISO 100. That means this scene was very bright, which means the foreground had to be pretty darn dark. But the OP says there was no post-processing done on the image. I'm not a Nikon guy, or even a camera-from-this-decade guy. Maybe there's some setting that has been invoked to adapt to scenes like this. In the absence of some in-camera magic, I can't see how an image can come straight out of the camera like this.

VTMatwood Loc: Displaced Vermonta in Central New Hampsha

I will upload the RAW (.NEF) file a bit later tonight. That may provide some additional insight.

CPR Loc: Nature Coast of Florida

A raw file is not a picture, it's just data. It has to be converted by some software to be viewed as a photo. Even in the camera you see a jpg version created by the camera from the raw data file. To fully evaluate a photo that was created from a raw shot you need to know the software as well as the camera settings.

htbrown Loc: San Francisco Bay Area

Actually, the same can be said of a JPG, a PNG, or a TIF. They're all just data in a file without software to read and display them.

VTMatwood Loc: Displaced Vermonta in Central New Hampsha

I have spent more time on this one and considered everyone's thoughts; it seems that the resolution to how to avoid this is... wait for it.... expose correctly. As I review the RAW file, the foreground is nearly black. Trying to recover that will add a sh*t ton of noise. Looking back at this... I am not sure why I shot at 1/2500 with -1 exposure compensation. Perhaps I was drinking that morning... or was distracted by shiny things at that moment, as later shots from that morning were exposed correctly. Regardless... I appreciate everyone's input... at first I was puzzled (obviously) but now I better understand... and that's what learning is all about. I will not make that same mistake again. Thanks Hogs.