Welcome to the forum, and let me say, what a cracking first post. A little iconoclastic, maybe, but I always like a bit of challenge to the conventional..

Personally, I don't go as far as to find the effect horrid, but it is terribly clichéd now.

To answer the question "why", I think it's because a) it's fashion and b) it's easy.

If you have a tripod, it's much easier just to stop down and give it 20 seconds, or however long it takes, than it is to choose an exposure that does capture the movement. I think it's actually quite hard to get it just right, but that could be just because I'm not very good.

There is a c) as well, perhaps. Maybe there's just not enough water flowing over a lot of falls these days to make them impressive enough if you just capture a moment. I've never seen a long exposure version of Niagara.

Sadly, not to me. On my monitor at least, the brightest cloud in the middle has become a featureless white splodge in the middle of a relatively dark background sky. Certainly the enhanced greenery in the foreground adds interest, but apart from that, the editing hasn't improved it in any way.

I played about with it myself in PS, and got the same degree of colour enhancement just by increasing the brightness, without making the cloud look like an alien spaceship approaching.

I don't see the point of messing with a photo in such a way that it just looks like a badly edited photo. Sorry, but to my eye the Emperor has no clothes on at all !!

This is a case in point. How would I know that this isn't just a photo - not particularly sharp, not particularly well lit.

Whereas your earlier examples have a lot going for them in their own right.

I'm not at all a traditionalist that rejects anything that isn't purely realist. But if it looks like a failed attempt at realism, how am I supposed to know that it's not just a bad photo?

My view on this kind of thing is that if you're going to cross the line into impressionism, it's best to go a good way beyond the line.

So I quite like all of these except for the last one, which still looks like a photograph to me, just a badly edited one. I could see the first one and the third one working well on a wall in a large modern room with a lot of daylight, for instance.

The first three are much more like a different art form, and so bring with them their own interest. To me, they're different - much more interesting in their own right - from Dirk's excellent and well-chosen example of where not to go.

This is without a doubt the best advice of the lot. Much as it's an excellent camera, the K10D has the extremely annoying habit of going from indicating fully-charged to empty, within fewer than 2 shots (usually zero or one). So when travelling, a spare battery is a must.

I'm with John too, regarding the tripod. Of course you need one, but not for carting around on holiday.

And the K10D is perfectly fine with a linear polariser, too, despite all the received wisdom that says you have to have a CP for AF cameras.

If you want remotely controlled shots, the IR "Remote Control F" is excellent, very light and small.

Actually I think it's a very appealing photograph. There's good detail in even the darker parts, yet they act as a frame for the main subject. The bright background gives an effective silhouette effect for the bike, yet adds the reflections to it as well.

The converging lines on the ground lead the eye into the picture, and the brightness isn't over-exposed, so the detail is all still there. And since there's detail in the background as well as in the bike, it's a lot more interesting than having one or the other on its own. I'm surprised they don't clash, but to my eye they don't.

Much to recommend it, IMO, and well-captured, especially since it's presumably hand-held.

True.
False.

Have to say, I can't get all that excited about this one.

So

a) you have to bend it - quite hard probably;
b) you have to miss the fact that it cracks open and
c) you have to fail to notice bare wires when you poke it into the charger...

... before you injure yourself.

I know they have to cover themselves, but...

Ta for that. Mine's one of the affected ones. I'll keep an eye on it - there's no sign of cracking or other damage so far in the Fo8 connector.

Well kudos to both you and the Jessops manager for exceptional discernment.

Welcome.

I think there's a missing word here - 'exclusively'. Using it 'exclusively' in P&S mode would be a waste of its abilities. It has a host of options that you can choose to use - or not. I choose to use it in fully auto mode sometimes, but not arbitrarily.

I've found, for instance, that the camera often makes a much better job of exposure (even of the thing I want) in matrix metering mode, than I can using spot mode, when there is a high dynamic range in the scene. Because of course then I tend to ruin everything but the subject, thus rendering the background too distracting.

This is the reverse of what I used to find back in my film days with the ME Super, where I could usually do a much better job than the camera. (I did 'spot' metering by zooming in, noting the exposure, and then reframing, of course).

So I'm a big fan of 'auto' in the right context.