I've had a few discussions off-site, and I think part of the reason people still spout the 'show, don't tell' mantra is due to confusion as to what, exactly, 'showing' and 'telling' consist of.

Based on my observations, I would submit that, in short, 'showing' is dramatisation, while 'telling' is narrative.

I have heard people argue that if 'telling' is bad and shouldn't be done, then narrative that is vivid and detailed and entertaining and generally just good must obviously be 'showing' - an example of faulty logic if I ever saw one. I have also heard people continue that argument, and say that 'telling' consists of stuff like 'the car is red' - simple descriptive sentences, and that narrative is only 'telling' if it's boring (not in so many words, of course, but in a more roundabout way that apparently makes sense to them and supports the absolute 'show don't tell' argument).

Narrative is more efficient, but less dramatic; dialogue and other dramatisations are more dramatic, but less efficient. It's the writer's job to find the balance - using narrative to skip over something that isn't critical to the plot while still conveying to the reader the high points that are necessary to understanding is much more entertaining than dramatising a ten-page section on taking a relaxing walk through a forest. (Unless there's a very important conversation happening during that walk, but then it doesn't fall into the category of 'something that isn't critical to the plot'.)

What I think the writer's job is, is to determine which technique will convey the information in the most entertaining and 'attention-holding' way.

--
Who needs to be big and burly when you can just apply physics?