Peterson and Adams were the first that came to mind but they are taken.
If only: Adams had lived into the digital age and had written Photoshop in addition to The Print which is masterful; and
The part before you press the shutter release was addressed as masterfully as these.

Computer users fall into two categories:
Those that have had disk crashes, and
Those that are going to have a disk crash.

On the other hand this is the first literal dish crash I have heard of. Good luck.

You are talking a walk around lens. As noted the choice depends on where you are walking and what do you see. If you managed all you photos with Lightroom you have a tool to see what you actually use. You can easily create a histogram of what focal length you actually have used. For example, I used (DX) 10-24 and 18-200 for several years. (Yes, I know it takes at least two more hands than I have to swap those guys in the field!) I found I used the 10-24 almost always at either 10 or 24. But I used the 18-200 all over the map. Furthermore, when I looked at the 200s they weren't my favorite. So I started using the 24-70 f/2.8 instead. But damn it's heavy! And note that on a June day when a snowy owl landed on my garage roof on the south shore of Lake Ontario I was without a tripod and the 18-200 was the longest lens I had with me. I got a decent photo (or 50) for evidence. Much better than nothing! And not sufficient to get a $10K long big aperature lens past the CFO. Good luck. And I hope this wasn't too confusing.

I don't know if this applies directly to your question but... I would use the tool buying wisdom. If you spend the big bucks for a superior professional tool you will eventually forget the pain. If you buy the cheap inferior tool you will be reminded every time you use it until you buy the better one. A lens is after all a tool.

I'm with you man! I might keep the digital stuff for later but ditch the phone. I learned on an Argus C2 with Kodachrome ASA 10 so I'm comfortable with exposure. I have a M3, 35mm with wings, 50mm, 90mm, and 135mm. The Leica is almost a spiritual experience to use. The uncluttered rangefinder is bright and with very quick accurate focusing. The shutter has a very soft click. Nothing distracting between the photo and the brain. (OK, wings for the 35 deliver a confused image.) Anyway, I still use it occasionally and love it. I no longer have a darkroom but i couldn't give away my Czech 1960s enlarger. But I do have a changing bag, a film tank, and a bathroom. I'm not allowed in the kitchen with the stinky fixer! I then scan the negatives and catalog and process them with Lightroom. I haven't quite matched the Kodabromide look but we are getting there. The blacks are the problem. Too light on the screen. Still a lot of fun.

First real camera was a hand me down from my father Argus C2 (C3 w/o flash sync). Prewar like myself. First SLR was Honeywell Pentax H1a. Then added a Leica M3 (best camera ever made). When I wanted to ditch awkward screw mount lenses I picked Nikon. Why? I don't actually remember. Let's go with the devil made me do it. But now I am invested in a lens system. (I don't use any of the original lenses anymore). D70s was first DSLR and now D7100 is second and latest. I am not exactly a gear collector!

Yes, but if the third time ruins priceless pictures you have blown the budget.

An anal picky comment, don't blame the lack of ability to edit on JPEG. In these cases the image is toast before JPEG compression. The intent of JPEG is to include in the file only information necessary to produce the quality print or screen image. And it does a fine job of that.

You are welcome and apparently lucky. I have what my wife calls "The Curse". I am 75 and a retired PhD engineer. She says I am too technical in my reasoning and stubborn in defending my obviously flawless opinion. I plead no contest!

You may have hit a sweet spot with your question. As I attempt to move from technically perfect photographs toward artistic photo with some of that emotional stuff I have come to the opinion that there is no perfect WB and exposure. They all have to do with the intent. Raw turns LR into a tool in exploring art after the exposure. If you were to produce the most scientifically correct rendering I guarantee your brain wouldn't enjoy the result. But I digress, as usual.

The difference is actually pretty simple. In the raw case the processing begins with the sensor data and the WB slider is directly adjusting the color temperature hence the temperature number is meaningful. In the JPEG case the camera processing has made that adjustment, applied a camera color calibration, cast the image into a gambit (usually sRGB), and compressed the image to JPEG before LR gets it hands on it. Now there is no practical way to make the control reflect a color temperature.Hence, Adobe uses an arbitrary number.

If you want a show and tell set your camera to tungsten and take a photo with flash or daylight and save both raw and JPEG. Get both smurf pictures into LR and play with the WB. You will have to tell LR to treat them as separate photos (there is a check box somewhere) or else LR will only develop the raw.

In the print module set up a 11x17 or whatever background and center your 9x16 in it. Then set print to jpg and there you go. I would get you more detailed instructions but I am sitting down stairs in my jamies and it has been a while since I did something like that. Being cheap I have set up templates like that for 8x10 and 8x12 in 11x14 with black background. Have them mounted on foam board slap precut mat on them and put in a metal 11x14 frame.

I am a raw only type. All files get catalogued and managed thereafter with Lightroom ASAP. JPEGs could go the same route but editing results with Raw will often be superior. I manage all the images that I have the copyright for in LR regardless of origin. If I did studio work where editing is not needed I would surely shoot JPEG and ship it. But I am decidedly an amateur. Likewise a sports photographer who shoots rapid fire would be slowed down. In any event the images on the camera's display are JPEGs processed with the camera's settings so they need to be set with care. If you take a strobe shot with WB set to tungsten the display is going to look like a smurf convention.

BTW you don't nee to backup the previews. LR will recreate them if it needs them and they are very time consuming to backup. Lots and lots of files.

I have given way too much thought to the exact question you pose. Let me summarize my conclusions as concisely as my anal obsessive engineer mind will permit. I reinvented and recommend the 3-2-1 rule. Which is at least 3 backups on at least 2 media with at least 1 offsite. Furthermore backups shall not be physically connected to the computer except when being used. (Think lightning or ransomware.) Three are required in case you find one has failed before or during use. Two types are required in case of reader failure or obsolesce. (Think DAT tapes.) And. of course, we need an offsite copy in case of fire or natural disaster.

Here is my system for my particular needs. I use Lightroom to catalog and manage what has turned into ten s of thousands of images. Since many taken with my latest camera that has too many pixels I now have over 1TB of files. Forget about the photo editing. Since I am 75 I need to find “that” photo before a senior moment sets in and I forget what I was doing. The LR database is the only way to go. My work flow is to copy files from the source and catalog them with the import function. (I hate the term Import since LR neither owns, saves, nor modifies the original images. I also set LR to not save metadata changes to the files.) So the files can be archived to backups immediately and once for all. However, I must also save the catalog after any edits and maintain the last version as a zip file in Dropbox. I keep two local backups of the most recent originals on USP drives (WD Passport drives in whatever capacity that costs ~$100) and a third one in a safe deposit box. They are actually smaller than a stack of passports, Thank You. I keep the zip copies of the Catalog in Dropbox and copy the last one to the backups just before they are swapped to the box. I realize they are slightly vulnerable while only on Dropbox. But I digress. When I swap disks to the box, at least quarterly, I also add a the recent changes to an archive in Amazon Glacier which is relatively inexpensive for large amounts of data and secure from ransom ware attacks.

If you still reading this I hope it is helpful.

Look us Jacques Lowe in Wikipedia.

Been there, done that! Photo ops much nicer than in the desert island 1500 or miles off your west coast. But I never got comfortable or safe driving on the left. Never had a day when I didn't turn on the windscreen wipers going for the turn signal. Personal best was once.