I have lost 4 or 5 of them. Don't even bother any more. Bad design flaw, but still a great camera. Check out Ali Express for replacements. They are only $1 or so and virtually the same as OEM hut a fraction of the cost. I got 10 of them and have lost quite a few.

You have missed one of the benefits of first making a duplicate layer before doing any edits. Make a dup & do all of your edits on the duplicate. It does not add any complexity, but you will always have the original image as part of your file.

It is not a good idea to use memory cards as long term storage or backup. They are dependable, but hard drives are a better backup medium. Also, always backup to more than one physical device. Any device can fail.

For those so inclined, some more interesting reading. Everyone does this, some people more that others....

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/cognitive-dissonance
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/science-choice/201504/what-is-confirmation-bias

Faith is fine. But, it makes me mad to see many good people, who's faith is being manipulated. This is just another way to use faith to scam good people and get their money. I doubt it will change anyone's mind, but here is a very detailed analysis of all of the issues with the Noah's Arch story. I challenge any "true believer" to read it. https://ncse.com/cej/4/1/impossible-voyage-noahs-ark

Another interesting trip to take. :-).
https://amp.livescience.com/65053-flat-earther-cruise-antarctica-ice-wall.html

Fyi, not needed. RAW has an embedded jpg image for viewing. Also, you can view RAW files in windows. You may not even need to separately download ACR. Windows has thu built in capability. I use Nikon. I can view all my RAW files on my laptop. I have not added any additional software. Of course, the image I see is just the default translation of the RAW data, but useful for preliminary viewing.

I disagree with most of the suggestions, but you can easily check this.
It is probably NOT a scratch on the sensor, or something on the fence. No need to guess, take another picture with a low f stop ( 5.6 ?,lower if you have a fast lens).) a scratch on the sensor will not show up with a low f-stop (short depth of field).
If it is happening on all pictures, it is definitely not a memory card issue.
Definitively not in the image (on the fence)
At first I thought perhaps dead pixels, but if you enlarge it you can see that some of the line is contiguous. If it were dead pixels, all you would see would be discreet dots.
My best guess is it is something electronic that impacts on that row of pixels.

As several people have correctly suggested. DO NOT use a memory card as long term storage. VERY bad idea. Make sure you copy photos to a more stable medium designed for long term storage. It is also a good practice to backup to at least 2 places. The question is NOT "will a storage device fail", but when will it fail.

Interesting discussion. I have been looking for some simple software to present pictures. I do not want to do anything fancy. I just have some basic requirements. With each slide I would like to display either the text from the Metadata fields "Title" or "Caption" ( as labeled in Lightroom Classic CC). Also would like the slide to display the GPS data, so during a presentation I can link to a map. I know that I can do this in LR, but frankly LR requires a computer with too high resources (cpu, ram etc). I have a basic laptop and cannot really run LR on it. I use my high end desktop for LR, but that is not portable.
Thanks

Nice, simple analogy. :-)

With all due respect, there seems to be much well meaning, but incorrect information on this topic. I will try another example. Hopefully this will help.
Some full frame cameras have the ability to select "crop mode". For example a Nikon D750 can take pictures either FF or in 1 of 2 "crop modes". You can set a 1.2 or 1.5 crop. In these modes it will use a smaller (central) part of the sensor. In this way it exactly mimics the way the camera would work if it had a smaller crop sensor (with the respective crops). The 1.2 crop mode results in about a 16.7MP capture and the 1.5 crop has about a 10.3MP capture.
That means that everything else being equal if you had an DX camera where all other specs were identical (pixel density, sensitivity, electronics, optics, etc.), and this DX it had a 16.7 or 10.3 MP sensor, it would result in the same image data.
There are obviously advantages and disadvantages to FF vs DX depending upon what you are photographing, but if you remove all other variables (other than sensor size), there is no way you can tell the difference between the two just by looking at the photo.
If anyone feels I am wrong, please supply a detailed example, I would be glad to learn something.

Absolutely not. Take the comparison between a full frame & "crop" sensor. The only difference, is that the photo ( in a crop) is limited to a more central part of the full frame ( hence the "crop" term). EVERYTHING else is the same. Of course, using a FF or CS will mean that you have 2 different cameras, 2 different sensors ( & perhaps resolution) and 2 different electronic processors, etc, so many things may give you a hint of which camera did the photo. But can you tell just because you have a crop or ff (assuming the pixel density is the same) NO.

You are misunderstanding focal length and magnification. If you take a 5x7 print and instead print it 10x14, it is not like getting a 2x magnification. It is a digital magnification. An optical magnification ( increased physical focal length) will give you a real (re. Additional data) magnification.

No, reduced POV is not the same as longer focal length