I am reading through the responses and there seems to be lots of well-meaning but sometimes misunderstood information about the cause of moisture/condensation getting into a camera. To understand the risks of getting moisture into a camera while changing lenses it will help to understand how/why the air holds water. The colder air is, the less water it can hold. Warmer air can hold more water than colder air.
Relative humidity is normally expressed as a percentage. A higher percentage means that the air–water mixture is more humid. At 100% relative humidity, the air is saturated and is at its dew point. It is when air is cooled below its dew point ( for ex: by touching a camera body) that you will get water in/on your camera.
The practical effect to you and your camera is that you may have an issue if your camera body is cooler than the outside air temperature. For example, this might happen if your camera was in an air-conditioned house, and you go outside where it is much hotter. When that outside air touches the (colder) camera body, it may cool the air below the dew point and cause water to appear on the camera.
A specific example is: air at 80 degrees and relative humidity 50%. From a chart I see that the dew point is 60 degrees. This means that as long as the camera is OVER 60 degrees, I should be OK. In case you are interested, here is a site to calculate the actual numbers.
http://www.dpcalc.org/
If your camera body is below the outside dew point , I would NEVER take off the lens. Exposure to the warmer will cause moisture almost immediately. I would also be careful about "pumping" lens or doing anything that will bring in the outside warmer air into the camera.
In your case, it seems like it was cool out and your camera was probably much warmer than the outside air, so you would have been OK.
Having said that, it is always good to use a quick and careful process to change lenses. Point the camera down. Change lenses as fast as possible. Leave the camera open for under 1 sec, if you can. This will minimize dust and air contaminants from the outside air from entering your camera.
The reverse is also true. If you have been outside in the cold weather and bring a camera into a warm and humid house, keep the camera in an airtight container (camera bag etc) until it warms up to the inside temp. If you do not do this, you may get moisture inside the camera, even if you do not open up the camera. Of course most times your air-conditioned house will have very low humidity, so this may often not be an issue.
Hope this helps.

I agree. I didn't know you already had an SSD for the OS. That is a very good configuration.

Not sure what your budget is, but make sure all your data is safely backed up on a 3rd drive. Also , *again depending on budget), this might be a good time to upgrade to an SSD. You can get a 500gb- 1Tb SSD for around $100 or so. You will really notice the speed improvement. Hopefully your case also has room for a Hard drive ( newish one) to use for data. To repeat, make sure your data is backed up. Hope this is helpful.

Yes, I agree. Photoshopped. No way that bird is on a Hawk moving thru the air, especially with its wings slightly opened. Also the head is aerodynamically at wrong angle.
But, I like your sense of humor:-)

I'm not sure if you are kidding or not, but a backup of LR cannot possibly take as little time as a few seconds. I haven't tested it, but it probably takes longer even with no pictures in the catalog

I do not know specifically what your issue is, but an explanation of how these applications (LR , PS etc) access photos, may help you to figure out the problem.
You do not "send" photos between the products.
The photos reside on your computer in a folder somewhere. The photos do not move.
The location of the NEF ( or JPG) files can be found by using standard Windows utilities (File Explorer) and doing a search. LR or PSE do not send them anywhere. These programs have pointers to the photo location. These pointers are stored in the catalog.
That is why you never want to use File Explorer to move or rename photos. If you do this, the LR catalogue will still have the old name or location, and LR will not be able to find it. For some reason, it seems that PSE does not know where these NEF files are. I am not sure what you mean by "struggle to open". If they open but are slow, that sounds very strange. If it just cannot find some files, that would make sense, the pointers to the photos is corrupted or incorrect. It has been several years since I have used PSE, so I do not remember how PSE handles files & pointers, but hopefully this has given you some hints on how to fix it.

You do not say what you mean by "my Lightroom organization". If you mean you need to reinstall Lightroom 6, but do not have the source, you probably cannot do that. But, if you mean you want to recover your old catalog or your original Lightroom settings or items like custom presets etc, than you can probably find them under Windows.old and look for \AppData\Roaming\Adobe\Lightroom\Develop Presets. Or something like that (do a google search for LR presets). Move the found files to your current location for your installed LR on the newly created Windows C:\.

Again, I am not really sure what you mean by "my Lightroom organization". If you are more specific, I mighe be able to help. Do not wait too long to recover your data though. I think Windows may delete the Windows.old directory after a specific amount of time (not sure).

Yes, More apps are now using the graphics card for memory & processing. PS used to use very little, but in the past year or so PS & LR are now using the GPU more. I do not know atout Topaz products. It does seem reasonable to me that lots of RAM can (sometimes) make up for not having a graphics card, but you still miss the extra processing of the GPU.
As for Windows saying that you are running out of memory, there can be several reasons. Applications can "leak" memory, IE stop using RAM and not release it properly. Or, Windows itself will also leak memory (bug). This means that even if you close down everything, you will still not free up all unused memory. The only "cure" is to either sign off & on, or if that still doesn't free up memory, reboot.
If windows managed memory properly, your leaving many browser tabs open would not impact performance. Once you stopped using the browser Windows would just page out the inactive pages and free them up (if you needed them). Of course this process takes time, but once done, it "should" be the same as closing down the browser...But Windows has never really done this well.
Open up task manager while you are running & monitor your RAM usage. At least you can see when things are getting close & proactively close down apps.
I agree about the 32gb RAM, but recently PS & LR seemed to be using quite a bit more memory on my PC. Probably the recent updates are poorly coded & hog memory... not sure, but I was forced to increase my RAM to 64GB ( I also have a pretty good Video card).
BTW, you are probably aware of this but if you are doing any active paging at all, you likely will see a big speed improvement if you get more RAM, assuming or course that your current configuration supports more RAM.

If you can get a 2 year old pc for 10% of the original price, yes that is a good deal. But your comment on too much RAM or extra cores is not correct. It is easy to misunderstand what is going on.
If you have extra RAM that you do not need, it just is unused RAM. For example: if when you are using all of your applications and you are using 24GB of RAM (see Task Manager), adding additional RAM will not speed your processing, but it will NOT slow it down. It is just "Extra".
Also, extra cores will NOT slow you down. It may not help if an application is "single threaded", meaning it just uses one core, but additional cores will not slow you down. For single threaded functions, a big impact will be the cpu speed. For example a 4 core 5Ghz cpu will probably be faster than an 8 core 3Ghz cpu for single threaded processes. But an 8 core 5Ghz cpu will be faster than a 4 core 3 Ghz cpu. Of course, this is an over simplification,lots of other things impact speed, but you get the point.

Some Photoshop functions will parallel process (use multiple threads/cores at the same time) and extra cores will significantly speed things up. Others are just single threaded so not so much. Hope this is helpful

ok, Thanks for the input. Can you show me the before(RAW) & after of the picture that Photoshop could not save, but a Topaz product saved?

A cost effective & quick way to increase performance of your current laptop is to check out the memory. Do you have enough? If it is not soldered in, additional RAM may be a choice. Use Task Manager to check your memory usage when Topaz and/or PS are loaded. If you are using all of your RAM, adding Ram (if you can) may help lots.
Another possibility is to replace your current hard drive with an SSD. It will probably be a SATA III (not as fast as an NVMe) but still much much faster than a hard drive (also cheaper than a NVMe). This can make a big difference. It also has the added possibility that when you eventually get a new PC (desktop probably) you can use the "old" SSD as an additional drive in the new PC. So, the RAM upgrade is a "throwaway", the SSD is not.

With all due respect, no it is not that easy. Yes you can save money and it is a great way to go for many reasons. Ever screw up the paste on the heatsink of a cpu?....Yes, most reasonably tech savvy people can do it with some research. The 2nd time is much easier, but.......

Depending upon your budget, (that CPU is ok, but...) you may want to get a faster cpu. check out this site to try different configurations.
https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/SpeedTest/1450761/11th-Gen-IntelR-CoreTM-i7-11700---250GHz#Prices
Also, I see someone recommended Puget Systems. Those guys are really good.
https://www.pugetsystems.com/
Take a look at some of their videos for some good advice.

Here is some additional advice (mine.... I have lots of experience).
32 gb may be OK depending upon what you do & also how "piggish" Photoshop gets. I had been using 32gb and almost never had an issue until last month. I found all of a sudden I was using over 32 gb & paging like crazy (not good). I added another 32gb & problem solved. I did not really change my work flow, so perhaps Adobe had an "upgrade" that did that was poorly written, not sure.
Anyway, the important takeaway from this is to MAKE SURE you have extra slots and you can upgrade to 64gb. The Dell you have seems to take up ALL 4 slots with 4gb cards. I would try for 2 x 8gb RAM, so 2 slots are open for upgrades.
As for your storage, if you want to save money, 2 SSDs (or larger than 1Tb) are faster but not necessary, but make sure they are NVMe (that is what you listed).
If you put the O/S on the SSD (always done) and make sure the programs & all the cache & paging files are on the SSD, storing all of your pictures on the HD will not really slow you down. picture load time will be a little longer (a few seconds?) but once it is loaded into LR or PS, you will not see much (if any difference).

I think your Dell has only one M2 slot, so you cannot add a 2nd NVMe SSD.

I think the Dell has 4 bays for HD. I have a very important suggestion. If you get a 1Tb HD, also get a 2nd HD of 4Tb or so to use for BACKUP. You always want to have a backup on a separate physical HD. HDs are not that expensive and always make sure to backup your data.

One last thought. Liquid cooling may sound exotic, but it isn't really & works much better than most air coolers. With computers one of the most important things is temperature. You may be able to upgrade to water, but I am not sure if just makes more sense to get a computer that initially has water cooling. Here is a comment I saw (I did not read it completely, but I thought it may be helpful.)
https://www.dell.com/community/XPS-Desktops/XPS-8940-Liquid-Cooling-suggestions/td-p/8017454

I don't get it. Instead of the ND and 25 frames at 1/100, just just do 15 frames (or whatever) and no ND. Same result. Stacking is to add light, (or increase dof), ND allows a longer exposure, but if you are stacking 25 frames at a shorter exposure, i don't know what it gets you

ok, Thanks for the input. Can you show me the before(RAW) & after of the picture that Photoshop could not save, but a Topaz product saved?