Hi Jim. You get some nice shots but, as one example, this one would be so much better quality wise if shot using 100 ISO, which should be around 1/250 @ f11, so I cannot really understand why setting at 1,000 ISO and using 1/1600 @ f7.1, which equates to 1/125 @ 200 ISO, or if you wish, 1/60 @ f7.1 for 100 ISO is being used. As you can see, doing the computation for equivalents, my expected (normal sunlight exposure for 100 ISO) would have been 1/500 @ f11, rather than your equivalent 1/60 @ f7.1. Probably, somewhere along the line, your exposure is strange, giving rise to distorted colours. As my lad Dave said, it appears like the heavy old ORWO film colours - far from natural. I would be interested to see what the RAW file looks like before processing as 1/1600 @ f7.1 using 1,000 ISO is so way off what it should be, so there has to be some fault in the chain, somewhere. I am not sure if you understand ratings in digital cameras. In the main, sensors are designed to optimise at 100 ISO (although Nikon claim theirs is 200) so using anything higher means the internal computing has to use less than optimum information. Anyway - assuming you can see the RAW image visually before processing (meaning no AUTO setting) rather like X3F files in SPP without any processing, what do you see? Perhaps you can check some and let me know.
