I would like to know which is the best method in presenting ground radiometric geophysical data , is contour mapping or sections considered sufficient or any other 2D digital filtering techniques are required?
Contour mapping will be certainly suitable to document the spatial distribution and variations of your ground radiometric data depending on soil (types, structures and moisture...) and/or lithological/hydrogeological differences. On the other hand, sections will document 2D variations of geophysical data, e.g., lateral and vertical distribution/variations of electrical resistivity or electromagnetic data, which are also dependent on soil and hydrogeological properties..., but these aspects are not particularly specified in your question, isn't it. Best of all, Anicet B.
You might go one step further to visualize your data as data structures easily used in models and calculations. I hardly bother to graph or plot data anymore, but keep it in forms that are easy to compare, easy to use as constraints on other data. So I keep, both mentally, and in storage, all the earth surface phenomena together. Then it is simple to query and use everything at a particular point, within some surface boundary, within some time constraints, etc.
I have been at this over 50 years now. In the first 30 years I looked for new ways to visualize. When I changed to "model efficiency" as my guide, I realized how much time and wasted effort goes into reverse engineering contour plots, charts, equations, regressions, reports and tabular data, even databases that others have built for themselves with no thought to how others might use it. I am somewhat concerned that the drive to put things on paper or into word processors has pigeonholed most if not all of the critical information society needs. So please consider data sharing with all your sources and sinks of the kind of data you are using. I go a bit further and trace out ALL users, sources, potential users, and potential sources for every type of information. Because that is the only way I have found to tackle systemic issues. Of course, I only work on global and systemic issues, so I am biased on what I consider important.