I may be helpful to think of it in more detail, so I've taken a closer look - hopefully any further discussion can be useful as there's plenty of images where these issues apply. As usual I'll lay out my thoughts directly as a start point

My own view on it is that the yellow on the white buildings is exaggerated - not caused by the sunlight, but by an overly warm artificially set colour temperature value. This is evidenced by the bleed off of yellow into the lower horizon, but with the cast continuing to the far distance which is actually very high altitude.

Interesingly in this lower sky area, where the exposure surges up towards the whitepoint, we see the same increase in yellow cast as we do on the brightest parts of the white buildings - you would expect the opposite as brightness shoots up towards pure white. Looking at the line of buildings on the pier, this pattern is repeated - it is only the brightest highlights that take on the yellow, with patches of building retaining white around that.

The predominant colour cast in the morning is blue. Warmer toned items near the ground would be saturated, true, but that's mainly caused by the low angle of light and the resulting depth of contrast across textures - not the actual colour temperature of the sunlight. It would boost any bright colour really.

It is probably the 'natural' saturation of the objects on the ground, but combined with an 'unnatural' too warm colour temperature setting, that has led to the very yellow seeweed and some of the stones and whites on the buildings.

Actually, on the beach itself, I agree that the tones are attractive (apart from the seeweed that I mentioned before). So my own suggestion would be to select off the pier and sky and cool that all down, getting nice whites and blues back, then work on the ground separately with less cooling, keeping all the nice natural saturation there.

I love the 'surround' OOF effect in the last one - it looks a bit like one of those 'toyland' software filters, or is it actually gaussian blur masking? Its not just shallow DOF is it, because the centre distance is in focus as are the areas left and right of the subject.

Shapes & forms in the last two work nicely. The whitepoint setting works better in the first (slightly subdued) but in the second I find it pitched a bit high as the brightness behind is uncomfortable.

I have seen, usually in backlit conditions, with my Pentax 'A' 28mm f2.8 a sort of magenta cast, and I have found it difficult to successfully correct - it seems to be different to normal colour casts caused by lighting and doesn't respond well to the usual saturation and vibrance controls I have found.

Some simple desatuaration and reducing luminance will do the trick

If they were DNGs, then try Pentax Digital Camera Utility - first check the shots in the Image Preview pane. This will display the embedded JPEG created by the camera - this will tell you if it is to do with camera processing. Then select the image in the browser to open it for editing in PDCU and carry out some minor adjustments.

If the sky is blown then activate the 'Highlight Recovery' panel and try and get it back within the histogram range again - it may not become blue, but you should be able to get a realistic looking grey / white without any artifacts. At least if you can achieve that you know it is not the actual image data that is corrupted, but something within your previous processing chain.

Yes, beautiful Nicely composed and the elements are well organised. I think the yellow glow on that bit of seeweed stuff should be toned down a bit - it looks like its on fire! The yellow tones on the white buildings in the first one looks a bit too strong to me, maybe you could restore some white there?

Thankyou David, I appreciate you taking a look. It has been a long time since I've had the chance to go out purely for photography, and it makes a real difference in terms of concentrating and taking the time needed for each shot.

Thanks again for the encouragement Alan

Peter, as always you're very kind 'Professional'? - Oh no, I've only got a K7 - does this mean I need a K3, or even Full Frame ???

It is slight, and insignificant in certain processing and output scenarios. For more demanding post-capture workflows and larger outputs then the extra 'capture sharpening' (more accurately 'lack of capture blurring') will prove advantageous further along the chain.

And I have also seen enough examples of moire in innocent enough places for it to be a consideration. So my own judegment was that for me ( and taking into account my own approaches to image sharpening) I'd stick to a camera with the aa filter.

I guess I'm risking once again being told to leave it to those with 'the experience'... but hey, lets live life dangerously

None needed at all There's been plenty of talk about wide angle lens distortions in my recent building threads, so its quite understandable to make that assumption if you don't know the place.

Anyway, who cares about some curves on a building ... I'm just relieved you didn't find any colour noise or moire on the shots - ...now that would have really been a blow to my confidence!

The K3 does represent a 'sea change' in the range, maybe not in purely IQ terms, but its a new and significant redesign in many operational features and control aspects - and it gives Pentax users a number of things they have been asking for.

It also gives us much better choice at present - more choices depending on our indivual budgets and photography priorities. Probably now the original K5 has moved down to the level of a good budget choice for some. The K5II or 's' versions may well retain top spot for the 'high iso' people, or those who want a quality upgrade at a reasonable price but prefer to retain the same controls and features they are used to - in this respect it becomes the perfect 2nd body option as well.

But the K3 will be attractive to those who place value on its new special features, and there's quite a list. If I was in the market myself, then no doubt I'd love it, but I'm 'stuck' with getting the best I can out of the K7 (and still loving that!). But we are a bit more lucky now to be in a position where there are more options for everyone.