Thanks to BebuLamar, now I know the entire history. Sort of a spaghetti of threads.

Or, as per Rosanne Roseannadana, NEVERMIND!

Well, in the post I see the word "projector" and don't see the words "TV", "HDMI". I'm basing my response on what the OP said. You apparently have ESP?

My understanding of what the OP says he is doing, is that he's copying image files to an SD card to use in a projector.

If you have a projector that reads SD cards, then that seems perfectly reasonable to me. What makes it a "bad idea"? I do the same thing for SD cards that I then use in a picture frame.

I have the same problem. Taking my notebook computer is not an option for this trip. Just taking more SD cards, while it gives you plenty of storage space, does not solve the backup problem. Lose any one of those cards, or have something else happen to one, and photos will be lost.

Having both an Android phone and an iPad Pro, I did some experiments. With a small portable SD card reader that has USB connectors, I could read the SD card from both my phone and from the iPad. Note that in order to be able to read it from the iPad you need a USB hub. (Without the hub, the iPad will say there is not enough power to read the USB connector. Using a hub is a well-known work-around (or iOS fake-out). Depending on which iPad you have, you may also need a small USB to Apple Lightning adapter.

Then I ran into a bunch of issues wrto how the SD card is formatted. I want to use my 128GB SD card. The preferred format for that is exFAT, but it turned out that my Android only reads FAT32. While there are ways to get the 128GB card formatted to FAT32, after doing so my Lumix camera refused to use the card.

However, the iPad was not so persnickety. It is happy reading the 128GB card as formatted by the camera. Plus the iPAD has around 200GB available, quite a bit more than was available on my 128GB Android.

Because I have both a Google Photos account and an Adobe Cloud account, the iPad will automatically back up to one or the other whenever it is connected to WiFi or to cellular.

Here are two photos showing my setup. One is with everything connected, the other it's all disconnected so you can see the types of connectors in use.

Here is an example of a portable USB SD card reader, but its not the one I have which I cannot now find online: https://www.amazon.com/Adapter-Standard-Connector-Smartphones-Function/dp/B01BXSKPES/ref=asc_df_B01BXSKPES/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=309773039951&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=2480385184865567799&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9007374&hvtargid=pla-570532551063&psc=1

There has to be a "tail" behind this!

I would disagree with the cell phone recommendations. I find that it is much more difficult to take a photo with a cell phone than with a camera in several ways, some of them particularly applicable to less agile older folks.

Here are some of the cell phone issues:
1. Start the camera app
2. Hold the cell phone so that you don't accidentally touch the screen nor any of the buttons on the side.
3. Now move your hand around so that your finger can touch the shutter button.
4. Discover that you are holding the phone upside down or switched left to right and re-orient it.
5. Now press the shutter button without moving the phone and without dropping it accidentally.
6. Oh, whoops you took a selfie because in all your fiddling around, you touched the part of the screen that flips the lens front to back.
7. Oh, whoops, you accidentally started a phone call..

I could go on.

A camera is ergonomically designed to take pictures. A phone isn't.

Beautiful bird, beautiful sequence, beautifully captured!

Jerry, here's my plumbing story. I have a summer house in the Rockies and I kept getting a clog and backup. Plumber would come and with a roto rooter like device, remove the clog. A week to two weeks later, clogged again. Over and over. Even had one run a camera into the pipe and he concluded the problem was with the septic tank. Had the tank pumped out. A few weeks later, you guessed it, clogged!

So I reached the point where I decided if you want it done right you got to do it yourself. Went into crawl space under the house and by tapping on the PVC pipe found the approximate site of the clog. It was near a vent pipe. Using a hacksaw, I cut out a two foot section of the pipe. Due to the limited space, I had to do that lying on my back under the pipe.

You can imagine how much fun that was, particularly when the saw blade first cut through, and the backed up sewage drained out along my arm holding the saw, etc.

But, I found the problem. There was a long stick still about 4 feet long coming down the vent. Clearly what had been happening is that the snake or rooter would remove the clog, leaving the stick to resume catching toilet paper and reforming the clog in a week or two.

Removing the stick solved the problem, but how did that stick get into the vent pipe? I have a theory. The pipe sticks up out of the roof about 10 inches, and the probability of a falling stick successfully falling into the hole is small. But, being high in the Rockies the winter snowfall can easily accumulate to more that a foot on the roof. Now the top of the vent is below the top of the snow. A stick falls onto the roof upslope from the vent. The snow starts to melt. It melts faster around the vent pipe creating a funnel. The stick slides down the funnel into the pipe!

My vent pipes now have covers!

More than just sky replacement, etc. This AI creates pictures on demand!

https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/04/06/1049061/dalle-openai-gpt3-ai-agi-multimodal-image-generation/?mod=djemfoe

Dog dads think the same!

Here is Bryndy, a Cardigan Welsh Corgi. One is from 2010 when she was a puppy before her ears came up. The other is last year. She is now 11.

Your photo qualifies as an outstanding example of both. Some would argue that anything that uses a photographic medium is a photograph. I would disagree. For example, many of Peter Milton's prints make use of photographic images but I would not call them photographs although they definitely are art.

A less controversial statement would be that there are many photographs that are not art, although some might argue that art is in the eye of the beholder, which makes the whole question personal.

Then we get to post processing of what starts out to be a photograph, but depending on the degree and type of post processing, becomes less and less a photograph and more and more art. For example, for me (and many will argue this), replacing the sky is too much to still call the result a photograph.

You've already gotten lots of good advice, particularly from CHG_CANON who, IMHO, is the resident Lightroom Classic expert.

Only a few things to add - One, don't be very worried that you'll mess things up with Lightroom Classic. Every visual change you make to a photo is recorded in a separate file so that the original photo remains unchanged. (Note that changes to EXIF data, like keywords or dates are recorded in the physical file.) It is possible to delete a photo permanently, but when you ask Lightroom to delete a photo, it will ask you if you want it deleted from the disk drive or just removed from the catalog. If you do the latter, the photo remains on your disk drive but you just won't see it in Lightroom Classic. You can always import it into Lightroom Classic again later.

Two, and this repeats what others have said, your actual folder structure and naming conventions that you use on your disk drive for the folders and files is not very important. The only situation under which that becomes important is if you were to stop using Lightroom Classic because then you will need to rely on that folder structure to find a particular photo.

And, lastly, Lightroom Classic gives you many orthogonal ways of organizing your photos. By orthogonal I mean that each way you organize is independent of the other way and each way you organize is hierarchical in nature. The first one of these is the actual folder structure. But because there are so many other ways to organize, it becomes less and less important. Another way to organize is to use Collections. Although a photo can be only in one physical location, e.g., a folder, it can be in many Collections. Collections can be grouped together into Collection Sets so that they also behave in a hierarchical fashion. Another way to organize is through keywording. Keywords can also be hierarchical. For example, I have a geographical set of keywords with countries at the highest level, then states or provinces, then cities, and in some cities particular buildings. As a result, when I assign the keyword Philadelphia to a photo, it automatically also gets the keywords Pennsylvania and USA. Finally, you can use Labels (shown as colors) and Stars to organize photos. How you use them is up to you. The advantage of these two organizing tools is that using them is very fast, a click or two per photo. Say I want to pick out 10 photos to send to someone, but I have several hundred to choose from. If I'm not currently using the yellow label, I might use that and as I browse through the several hundred candidates on my first pass, I can quickly label a subset with yellow. Then I filter to see only the yellow labeled ones and discover that I've still got 23 candidates. Now it is easy to compare these 23 with each other, and remove the yellow label from the ones I rule out until I eventually get down to the 10 I want.

Lovely, particularly the second one.
(For more than 50 years, I've spent many of my summers in Allenspark, making these shots a welcome preview for the summer to come. Thanks!)