I was a bit confused about those topics. Now they’re clearer.

As you pointed out, the use of f/22 is not really required for that image to capture the depth of field that I was after – since I was probably 20′ or 30′ away from the trees. I actually started to touch on the “distance to subject” concept in the post, but decided against it for the sake of keeping the concepts in this post simple. Your point is a very good one and is well taken. Perhaps I’ll delve into these other concepts in a later post as a follow up.

in regard to small apertures and deep depth of field, dof will increase with the distance between the photographer and the subject(rarely stressed, go close if you want bokeh!). further, lenses usually indicate infinite focus beyond 3 meters (give or take) if you set the lens at its farthest focus distance. also its said that most lenses have a “sweet spot” were they’re at their sharpest, taking into account general and corner sharpness. this usually occurs around f/5.6-f/8 (give or take). then there is the issue of diffraction often occurring beyond f/11 or so.

in the example from vegas the palm trees in the foreground are definitely farther away than 3 meters. so why would i gain anything from stopping down beyond the sweet spot, or say f/11, when there is nothing in the picture that’s really close to the camera?

this might seem like a bit of a rant, but genuinely just curious. Thanks!