No, that's not what I meant to ask.
I wrote: "Which part of the picture is the far field? Is it the lights that are tiny pinpricks way back behind the overpass? that have, in fact, shrunk in size consistently, as they should?"
You wrote: "The wiki article describes that only light sources of a certain intensity magnifies."
I wrote: "The lights in the far field are the same intensity as the closer lights. I mean to say, they're all streetlights. If the streetlights are not intense enough for magnification to occur, what's the point of the picture? Why would close streetlights exhibit magnification but not distant streetlights?"
I mean, that last bit is literally, 'why A and not B,' and you've repeated it back as 'I think you're asking, why B and not A.' embarrassing for both of us
Here is a picture to clarify.
The point is that those tiny pins in the background are also streetlights. The premise of the picture is that it shows magnification of distant light sources. However, those streetlights in the far distance are just as you said, tiny pinpricks. No magnification of the light source is seen.
also
9/10 has correctly pointed out that the only variable that matters with photons is frequency. A light source might radiate lots of photons, or few, but the amplitude of an individual photon does not affect its interaction with the atmosphere. From a physics point of view, there is no sensible way to describe Rowbotham's atmospheric magnification, without allowing for other effects such as diffusion.