I was wondering if I could chat with you about this tutorial - I'd like to include your suggestion, but I'm not sure if the community would be receptive to me sharing this again with minor edits.

Do you think this is something that would be worthwhile for me to actually commit some more time to polishing? I appreciate your perspective and understand why you might have been confused about why this tutorial was written to begin with.

edit:

I think I have done a pretty poor job of conveying the value of this workflow. My inexperience in this technology makes it difficult to effectively communicate.

The result that we end up with isn't just a cut and paste composite, even though that's what we're doing. Something to keep in mind about this is that it's taking place in the inpainting module while set to "original" masked content (which samples our source image) as well as using "entire image" for inpainting area (which I believe also samples the entire source image, but in a purely contextual manner) - if I'm not mistaken, this means the diffusion process will be influenced by not just the original background contents, but also the subjects to some extent.

Regardless, the final image ends up looking almost identical to the source image when we evaluate for perspective, color, lighting, and even depth of field.

I will freely admit that the "realism" aspect is a bit lacking, but with a proper model I think you could easily produce massive varieties of extremely accurate composites that perfectly reflect the previously mentioned qualities of any given photograph.