Is gaming going to be a concern on this rig?
Just that if its purely for Video/Photo editing then you dont need a GPU at all. The $100 your sinking into that could go toward another 8GB of RAM and a larger SSD. Which will more directly boost performance.
Are you overclocking? Just that if you arent, you can save yourself a bit of cash.
Gaming isn't a concern. But, are you sure I don't need any graphics card at all? Because everyone says the CPU HD graphics suck and that I would definitely need a graphics card for video and photo-editing. I've seen people say Adobe software is much better with a graphics card, as well (I usually use Photoshop, Premiere, and After Effects)
The Nvidia graphics card can help since you can harness it for CUDA in Adobe applications, but it isn't a big concern. The additional RAM will help more than the CUDA will.
While I agree that integrated graphics doesn't compare to even cheap graphics cards, if your not gaming it doesn't matter.
1) a little on Quick syn: Quote
Quick sync has been praised for being very fast. A benchmark from Tom's Hardware showed that it could encode a 449 MB 4 minute 1080p file to 1024×768 in 22 seconds. The same encoding using only software took 172 seconds. The same encoding took 83 or 86 seconds GPU-assisted, using a Nvidia GeForce GTX 570 and a AMD Radeon HD 6870 respectively, both of which are contemporary high end GPUs. Unlike video encoding on a general-purpose GPU, Quick Sync is an application-specific integrated circuit. This allows for faster and more power efficient video processing. 
Bare In mind after Build, if you find you need/want a dGPU - NO problem simple to add in at a later point.
If video work is your bag, have to aggree on upping CPU. SSD - your option (increasing size) as programs will not run faster and Only files on the SSD will benifit.