“Shouldn’t the in-focus area”, it wonders, “be all of the field of view that is near the focal distance of the lens?”

Yes. And I broke that cardinal rule on that image. But something about making the Santa and all the bricks at its height in focus got the better of me.

(though the nearby wall in the lower right being as in-focus as the distant castle makes my gaze nervously tug on its earlobe)

Again, you’ve spotted the major flaw. I put less energy into that one than I should have. For the last one, I did spend conscious effort selecting only the front tower for focus. I am still very much an amateur at this and hope to improve my technique in the future. I hope to one day create an image that does not give you a spontaneous cranial hemorrhage.

If you’ve somehow conquered picturing the fourth dimension and moved on to the fifth, then I’m convinced that you are some kind of god. I dearly wish that your link to the fifth dimension wasn’t broken, but perhaps it’s better that way.

Thank you for your detailed and critical commentary. As you know, I endeavor to do the same on your blog.

Like that one time I thought real hard about what the fifth dimension looks like and then woke up on the sidewalk with a nosebleed.

No, but seriously though. I almost never try to simulate depth of field because of this sensation. I may be over-sensitive to it. I do, however, sometimes subtly blur a low-contrast region where I’m pretty sure people won’t be looking anyway. Your third image down kind of does that, and I think it’s my favorite of the group (though the nearby wall in the lower right being as in-focus as the distant castle makes my gaze nervously tug on its earlobe).

I like where you’re going with this stuff, by the way. I’ve run across tutorials on variations on the simulated tilt-shift technique a few times, but never really saw any photos that made me think I should take the time to try it until seeing it here.

The fifth dimension, by the way, looks like this.