I can see the misunderstanding in the post you were referencing. The poster saw some issue with importing into the Lightroom "Library".

Import in Lightroom does two things. The first is to import images into a folder on your hard drive. You have to do that with all image editing programs. You can't edit it if you don't import it.

The second thing is to put the image into its Catalog. That happens at the same time as importing so someone who says they dislike Lightroom because of the need to import images is clueless.

The Catalog is the genius of Lightroom. It is what enables non-destructive imaging of all image types for all changes Lightroom makes. Nothing you do in Lightroom affects your imported image. Instead Lightroom maintains a script of your changes and applies them when you look at, export, or print your image.

The "Library" in Lightroom is simply a set of functions such as keywords and metadata. There is nothing imported to it. Although import is one of its functions.

I can see the misunderstanding in the post you were referencing. The poster saw some issue with importing into the Lightroom "Library".

Import in Lightroom does two things. The first is to import images into a folder on your hard drive. You have to do that with all image editing programs. You can't edit it if you don't import it.

The second thing is to put the image into its Catalog. That happens at the same time as importing so someone who says they dislike Lightroom because of the need to import images is clueless.

The Catalog is the genius of Lightroom. It is what enables non-destructive imaging of all image types for all changes Lightroom makes. Nothing you do in Lightroom affects your imported image. Instead Lightroom maintains a script of your changes and applies them when you look at, export, or print your image.

The "Library" in Lightroom is simply a set of functions such as keywords and metadata. There is nothing imported to it. Although import is one of its functions.

I can see the misunderstanding in the post you were referencing. The poster saw some issue with importing into the Lightroom "Library".

Import in Lightroom does two things. The first is to import images into a folder on your hard drive. You have to do that with all image editing programs. You can't edit it if you don't import it.

The second thing is to put the image into its Catalog. That happens at the same time as importing so someone who says they dislike Lightroom because of the need to import images is clueless.

The Catalog is the genius of Lightroom. It is what enables non-destructive imaging of all image types for all changes Lightroom makes. Nothing you do in Lightroom affects your imported image. Instead Lightroom maintains a script of your changes and applies them when you look at, export, or print your image.

The "Library" in Lightroom is simply a set of functions such as keywords and metadata. There is nothing imported to it. Although import is one of its functions.

I think a 24 is on the edge of being an ultrawide, but not quite.

Yes, he did use it a lot. One of the signature "looks" is this view where the foreground has a prominent element and you still have a long view of distant mountains. It has become somewhat of a cliche.

However, he used quite a variety of lenses - from a 15mm to an 80-200 F2.8 for landscapes.

Most of his gear decisions were made with an eye on weight and portability - so he could carry what he needed, often rock climbing to very remote locations - to get many of his amazing shots. He also didn't shoot digital, which might explain why he did not employ panoramas into his portfolio. But he could have had a hybrid process where he shot film then digitized it so he could edit on a computer. I really don't know enough about his process to comment.

http://www.mountainlight.com/rowell/gr_camera_bag.html

The ease with which one can put together a pano, along with the obvious benefits - reasonable portrayal of distances and scale, larger images that require less magnification to print, which translates into better printed image quality, and the flexibility of bringing fewer lenses into the field - if you have a 45mm lens you can easily cover the width of a 14mm lens on a full frame camera with 5-6 overlapping shots.

The first image is an example of a 6 frame pano, overlapped 50%, using a 45mm lens with camera in portrait orientation. I had my 14mm with me but in my test shot, the buildings were really tiny, as if the were moved from the Upper West Side of Manhattan across the Hudson River to North Bergen, New Jersey.

The resulting image is 15869x7394 px, or 117 mp, the posted image was downsampled for posting on UHH.

The second image is a single image taken with a 24mm lens in landscape orientation as a test shot, which I was not happy with for a number of reasons, followed by a 3 frame pano, same focal length, portrait orientation, 50% overlap.As you can see, there was no way that I could get the sky, reflection of the sky in the water, and the shoreline on either side of the bridge without going wide. I did not have my 14mm with me, so instead I did the pano and got everything I wanted. I ended up lopping off the top of the image above the trees, to get this result. The 14mm would have given me the width, but as in the other image, the buildings and even the bridge would have been smaller, and the foreground rocks would have been disproportionately large, dominating the composition, which was not my intent. I wanted the grouping of rocks to "point" towards the bridge. One more thing, in order to get the reflection with the 24mm I had to tilt the camera down, which resulted in keystoning that would have had to be corrected in post processing. The pano was shot with the camera perfectly level.

This is one of the examples I use to advocate for the use of panorama vs very wide angle.

"I don't know of any other process that does that. Many of those ho dis Lightroom insist on using their PC file system to create folders and import images to them. That takes numerous strps."
I learned PS well before Lightroom was packaged with it so I stay with what I know. One of those things is that when I plug in my memory card a folder is created. Automatically. My raw files are stored in that folder. Automatically. The new images are opened in bridge. Automatically. The images on the card are erased (my choice). Automatically.
All from one action. Yes that all had to be set up. Once. Quite a few years ago.

Rowell would have loved digital, but he didn't quite make it that far, unfortunately.

The second shot of yours isn't necessarily a shortcoming of wide angle, though; it's just not framed correctly. You could have gotten the sky , bridge, and rocks if you had gotten much lower and closer to the rocks, thus eliminating all the 'empty' lake area. You would have to have been careful not to hide your reflection, though. You're right that the bridge would have been smaller in relation to the rocks. If the rocks were the strongest element of your image though, that might be your best choice, which is why wide angle is just another tool in the bag. It's up to you to decide what you want the most prominent element of your image to be, and to choose the focal length that will allow you to create that. This cow image was shot at around 20mm because I wanted to make the cow as large as possible in relation to the mountain. The tunnel of trees was at 400mm. Different focal lengths for the job.

But just so you know, I'm with you on the pano technique. When I have time and I'm not worried about my light disappearing or my subject moving, I love shooting ridiculously large panos to stitch. This last one of the Notre Dame basilica is a 26-frame pano shot with a 70-200 lens. The full file is over 18,000 x 11,000 pixels! The thing will wallpaper a bus at 240ppi. :)

LR does the same thing. What you are talking about has nothing to do with Lightroom, Photoshop or any other application - it's all part of Windows' AutoPlay action settings. You can set it up to go open an application of your choice to import images when a recognized device is connected to it that has pictures on it. If you have LR identified as the application to use, then LR does exactly that - it will create a dated folder where it imports new images. Automatically. They open up in Library module. Automatically. Just like your PS in your system. And if you want to, in LR, you can have the card cleared as well, but this is a terrible idea. I'd rather format the card, which you should do anyway, after you are certain that the files have come over without any soft errors that could make them unreadable. Automatically. Just like what you do now. Automatically.

Photoshop is not destructive if follow good practices - you use adjustment layers, smart objects and even if you don't you work on a duplicate of the base layer to make your adjustments, or in the worst case, a duplicate of the file. Nothing at all is destructive about it, unless you apply your adjustments directly to the image without smart objects or layers. I even apply sharpening non-destructively, using Photokit Sharpener which puts everything on adjustment layers as well. I don't think you are qualified to pass judgement on PS since it is pretty clear that your knowledge of the program seems to be, from the statements you are making, a little thin.

This may provide a little insight to how to work non-destructively in Photoshop.

https://www.pluralsight.com/blog/creative-professional/understanding-non-destructive-workflows-in-photoshop

https://www.lightstalking.com/how-to-have-a-non-destructive-workflow-in-photoshop/

https://www.damiensymonds.net/2010/03/non-destructive-workflow.html

https://design.tutsplus.com/articles/using-non-destructive-editing-techniques-in-your-photoshop-workflow--psd-17780

If you aren't doing these things, your knowledge is beginner level, and you aren't properly utilizing Photoshop. The tendency for beginners is to rush to make adjustments, without giving any thought to reversibility, which would be totally destructive.

A simple example. You can apply the Dodge and Burn brushes directly to an active layer. Or you can create a two layers, each with 50% gray, call one Dodge, the other Burn. Change the blend mode to Overlay for each. You can paint with the burn brush onto the Burn layer, or a regular black brush, low opacity and flow, and build up areas that you want to make darker. And you can do the same with a white brush to lighten things on the Dodge layer. Totally non-destructive. If you want to partially undo a specific area, use the opposite color brush to "paint out" the effect. if you want to completely undo the burn or dodge, use a brush with a color of 50% gray, 100% opacity and paint away. If you decide you don't want to do any dodge and burn for now, but might want to do it later, you can leave the layers in place and just turn them off. This workflow is 100% reversible - the definition of non-destructive.

Not trying to insult you - just saying that you might want to invest the time to learn something before you disparage it as difficult to learn, difficult to use. At last count there are close to 9,000,000 users that obviously took the time to learn it and use Photoshop CC in their work or hobby.

I like Lightroom®. I've never tried its panorama stitching function--I do that before I import the photos to LR, using a simple tool called Autostitch®. Autostitch is neat--you don't even have to give it the photos in order, because it figures that out for itself.

Here are some examples of my panoramas: https://www.flickr.com/photos/8712554@N02/sets/72157682630852686/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/8712554@N02/sets/72157622539644247/

They're not outstanding, but they are good enough for me.