> ## Content Index > Fetch the complete content index at: https://theseguysknow.io/llms.txt > Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further. # We Tested 7 AI Image Editors Across 36 First-Try Edits - URL: https://theseguysknow.io/best-ai-image-generator-editor-test/ - Published: 2026-07-24T20:38:26.000Z - Updated: 2026-08-26T10:38:27.000Z - Description: I gave seven AI image generators the same task, then tested six of them with the same six edits. Every image shown is the first result I got. - Author: Mike Hazard - Tags: AI & Tech, AI Tools & Models, #how we know I have been testing and reviewing different products for brands for around five years. Early on, somebody told me, “Just be as honest as you can be.” Then the review was ready, and suddenly it became: “Well, not that honest. We still need to sell it.” That probably explains half the “best tools” articles on the internet. The winner is chosen first. A few attractive examples are added afterwards. Every tool gets a polite paragraph, and somehow the best product is always the one with the nicest affiliate programme. I have never been very good at that kind of reviewing. The people behind TGK come from different fields and all have master’s degrees. Not that a master’s degree teaches you how many rose stems should be inside a vase, but still. For this test, I gave seven AI image generators the same task and kept the first result from each. Then I gave six of them the same six editing tasks. Every image shown is the first result I got. I did not regenerate a bad result until it finally looked right. I did not clean anything manually, use a mask, upscale the images or quietly choose attempt number four because the first three had weird hands. If a model changed the woman’s face while replacing three letters on a coffee cup, the mistake stayed. The gap between these models was much smaller than I expected. Nano Banana Pro still produced the strongest pure photorealism. Seedream 5.0 Pro was the biggest surprise. Qwen was much better than its price suggested. FLUX was fine, although I expected more from it. Midjourney kept the most obviously artistic look, together with the most awkward editing workflow and the strongest moderation. GPT Image 2 was also seriously impressive. Its generation quality came close to Nano Banana. Then it changed the chair while removing a handbag, gave me two roses instead of three and created a strange little sun inside the flowers during blue hour. Nano Banana 2 did not produce the prettiest frame every time. It won by understanding the boring but important part of editing: change what I asked for and leave everything else alone. ## The Quick Verdict Overall winner ### Nano Banana 2 Passed all six edits while maintaining strong photographic quality. $0.74 for the complete test Best photorealism ### Nano Banana Pro The strongest skin, shadows, lighting and premium-looking finish. $0.98 for the complete test Best value ### Seedream 5.0 Pro The biggest surprise and the cheapest model among the top three. $0.63 for the complete test ## What I Tested The original prompt asked every model to create a vertical 4:5 editorial lifestyle photograph of an adult woman sitting at a small café table in a Mediterranean courtyard. It sounds simple, but the task included plenty of details a model could quietly miss: a cream blazer over a black top, blue jeans, small gold hoop earrings, a clean low bun, both hands visible, a white coffee cup marked LUNA, sunglasses, exactly three yellow tulips in a glass vase and a handbag positioned naturally beside her. #### Read the exact generation prompt Create a photorealistic vertical 4:5 editorial lifestyle photograph. One adult woman in her late twenties is seated at a small round café table in a Mediterranean courtyard, looking naturally toward the camera. She wears a tailored cream blazer over a black top, blue jeans and small gold hoop earrings. Her dark hair is styled in a clean low bun. Both hands are fully visible. Her left hand holds the handle of a white ceramic coffee cup. Her right hand rests naturally on the table. The cup has the word “LUNA” printed clearly in black. Also on the table are folded black sunglasses and a small clear glass vase containing exactly three yellow tulips. A structured red leather handbag hangs from the left side of her chair. Behind her is a pale-blue wooden door, pink bougainvillea and a warm cream plaster wall. Warm late-afternoon sunlight comes from the left, creating natural shadows. Realistic skin pores, hands, fabric, glass and leather. Eye-level 50mm photography, medium-wide composition, premium but believable editorial quality. No other people. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/21/2f/212fa2d6-dfa3-4908-9426-ec8fc852e19d/content/images/2026/07/E_TEST_NANOBANANA_2-2.png) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/21/2f/212fa2d6-dfa3-4908-9426-ec8fc852e19d/content/images/2026/07/B_TEST_SEEDREAM_5PRO.png) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/21/2f/212fa2d6-dfa3-4908-9426-ec8fc852e19d/content/images/2026/07/D_TEST_NANABANANA_PRO-2.png) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/21/2f/212fa2d6-dfa3-4908-9426-ec8fc852e19d/content/images/2026/07/gpt_image_2_source.png) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/21/2f/212fa2d6-dfa3-4908-9426-ec8fc852e19d/content/images/2026/07/C_TEST_QWEN_2PRO-2.png) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/21/2f/212fa2d6-dfa3-4908-9426-ec8fc852e19d/content/images/2026/07/A_TEST_FLUX_2MAX.png) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/21/2f/212fa2d6-dfa3-4908-9426-ec8fc852e19d/content/images/2026/07/MJ0.png) I then gave each prompt-only editor six separate jobs: 1. Remove the handbag and reconstruct the chair naturally. 2. Replace LUNA on the cup with TGK. 3. Change only the cream blazer to deep burgundy. 4. Replace the flowers with exactly three white roses and three stems. 5. Remove both earrings without adding replacement jewellery. 6. Change the scene to realistic blue hour without adding or removing anything. Every edit included instructions to preserve the woman, her identity, face, expression, body, pose, clothing, hands, objects, background, camera angle and crop unless that detail was the target. Each edit started again from that model’s untouched source image. I did not stack one edit on top of another because that would let earlier mistakes spread into the later tests. I requested one result at 2K wherever the route supported it. There was no second prompt, no brush, no mask and no “please try again, but actually count the flowers this time.” Midjourney was generation-only. Its Editor asks the user to erase or select an area before regenerating it. Once I choose exactly what to mask, I am already helping Midjourney in a way I did not help the others. Putting it in the same editing score would be fake fairness. ### One limitation Each model edited its own generated source rather than one common external photograph. This tests a complete workflow: generate an image, notice what needs changing and continue with the same model. It does not isolate six editors against one identical source. The difference matters. Removing a neatly supported handbag is easier than removing one the original model left floating beside a chair. Still, this is how people actually use these tools. I simply do not want to pretend the test proves something it does not. ## The Editing Scorecard Pass means the requested change worked and the result was immediately usable. Partial means the main request worked, but the model changed something else or introduced a logical mistake. Fail means it missed a critical part of the instruction. | Model | Handbag | Logo | Blazer | 3 roses | Earrings | Blue hour | | ------------------ | ------- | ------- | ------ | ------- | -------- | --------- | | Nano Banana 2 | Pass | Pass | Pass | Pass | Pass | Pass | | Seedream 5.0 Pro | Pass | Pass | Pass | Partial | Pass | Pass | | Nano Banana Pro | Partial | Pass | Pass | Partial | Pass | Pass | | GPT Image 2 | Partial | Pass | Pass | Fail | Partial | Partial | | Qwen Image 2.0 Pro | Fail | Pass | Pass | Partial | Partial | Pass | | FLUX.2 Max | Partial | Partial | Pass | Fail | Pass | Partial | I am deliberately keeping the scoring simple. I do not want to hide visible mistakes inside some made-up score like 8.73/10. ## The Six Edits, Side by Side ### Test 1: Remove the Handbag The instruction was simple: remove the handbag and rebuild only the part of the chair hidden behind it. Everything else should remain unchanged. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/21/2f/212fa2d6-dfa3-4908-9426-ec8fc852e19d/content/images/2026/07/E1.png) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/21/2f/212fa2d6-dfa3-4908-9426-ec8fc852e19d/content/images/2026/07/B1.png) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/21/2f/212fa2d6-dfa3-4908-9426-ec8fc852e19d/content/images/2026/07/D1.png) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/21/2f/212fa2d6-dfa3-4908-9426-ec8fc852e19d/content/images/2026/07/gpt_image_2_handbag.png) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/21/2f/212fa2d6-dfa3-4908-9426-ec8fc852e19d/content/images/2026/07/C1-2.png) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/21/2f/212fa2d6-dfa3-4908-9426-ec8fc852e19d/content/images/2026/07/A1.png) Nano Banana 2 and Seedream made the cleanest first-try removals. Nano Banana Pro and GPT Image 2 removed the handbag, but both changed the chair behind it. The edited chairs look perfectly believable on their own. Place them beside the source images and you can see that they are different chairs. Qwen rebuilt enough of the chair for the edit to fail. The new chair was not ugly. It simply was not the one I asked it to preserve. FLUX completed the obvious request, although the image picked up a more processed finish. ### Test 2: Replace LUNA With TGK The model had to replace LUNA on the cup with TGK. The cup, woman and rest of the image were supposed to stay the same. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/21/2f/212fa2d6-dfa3-4908-9426-ec8fc852e19d/content/images/2026/07/E2.png) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/21/2f/212fa2d6-dfa3-4908-9426-ec8fc852e19d/content/images/2026/07/B2.png) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/21/2f/212fa2d6-dfa3-4908-9426-ec8fc852e19d/content/images/2026/07/D2.png) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/21/2f/212fa2d6-dfa3-4908-9426-ec8fc852e19d/content/images/2026/07/gpt_image_2_logo.png) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/21/2f/212fa2d6-dfa3-4908-9426-ec8fc852e19d/content/images/2026/07/C2-2.png) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/21/2f/212fa2d6-dfa3-4908-9426-ec8fc852e19d/content/images/2026/07/A2.png) All six models produced readable text. Nano Banana 2, Seedream, Nano Banana Pro, GPT Image 2 and Qwen passed. FLUX also changed the woman’s expression. Her soft smile became more neutral during an edit that should have touched only three letters on a cup. This is exactly the type of change most people miss. The main instruction worked, so the result feels correct. Then you compare it with the source and realise the face moved for no reason. ### Test 3: Change the Blazer to Burgundy The instruction was to recolour only the cream blazer. The material, fit, folds, pose and everything around it had to remain unchanged. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/21/2f/212fa2d6-dfa3-4908-9426-ec8fc852e19d/content/images/2026/07/E3.png) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/21/2f/212fa2d6-dfa3-4908-9426-ec8fc852e19d/content/images/2026/07/B3.png) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/21/2f/212fa2d6-dfa3-4908-9426-ec8fc852e19d/content/images/2026/07/D3.png) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/21/2f/212fa2d6-dfa3-4908-9426-ec8fc852e19d/content/images/2026/07/gpt_image_2_blazer.png) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/21/2f/212fa2d6-dfa3-4908-9426-ec8fc852e19d/content/images/2026/07/C3-2.png) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/21/2f/212fa2d6-dfa3-4908-9426-ec8fc852e19d/content/images/2026/07/A3.png) This was the easiest edit. All six models passed. The stronger results kept the original fabric structure and allowed the lighting to affect the new colour naturally. The weaker ones still did the job, although a few introduced a small shift in the nearby skin, eye brightness or general processing. Nano Banana Pro looked especially good here. Nano Banana 2 and Seedream were also clean and natural. ### Test 4: Add Exactly Three White Roses The flowers had to become exactly three white roses with exactly three stems. The vase and everything else stayed. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/21/2f/212fa2d6-dfa3-4908-9426-ec8fc852e19d/content/images/2026/07/E4.png) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/21/2f/212fa2d6-dfa3-4908-9426-ec8fc852e19d/content/images/2026/07/B4.png) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/21/2f/212fa2d6-dfa3-4908-9426-ec8fc852e19d/content/images/2026/07/D4.png) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/21/2f/212fa2d6-dfa3-4908-9426-ec8fc852e19d/content/images/2026/07/gpt_image_2_roses.png) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/21/2f/212fa2d6-dfa3-4908-9426-ec8fc852e19d/content/images/2026/07/C4-2.png) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/21/2f/212fa2d6-dfa3-4908-9426-ec8fc852e19d/content/images/2026/07/A4.png) This is where the models started exposing themselves. Nano Banana 2 was the only clean pass. Seedream showed four visible blooms. Nano Banana Pro showed three blooms but four stems. Qwen showed four blooms with three stems. GPT Image 2 and FLUX both gave me two visible roses. “Exactly three” apparently remains advanced mathematics. The funny part is that several failed results still look lovely. If you saw them on Instagram, you would never care. In a test of instruction accuracy, two roses are still two roses. ### Test 5: Remove the Earrings Both gold hoops had to disappear without adding replacement jewellery or changing the woman’s face, hair, skin or expression. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/21/2f/212fa2d6-dfa3-4908-9426-ec8fc852e19d/content/images/2026/07/E5.png) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/21/2f/212fa2d6-dfa3-4908-9426-ec8fc852e19d/content/images/2026/07/B5.png) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/21/2f/212fa2d6-dfa3-4908-9426-ec8fc852e19d/content/images/2026/07/D5.png) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/21/2f/212fa2d6-dfa3-4908-9426-ec8fc852e19d/content/images/2026/07/gpt_image_2_earrings.png) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/21/2f/212fa2d6-dfa3-4908-9426-ec8fc852e19d/content/images/2026/07/C5-2.png) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/21/2f/212fa2d6-dfa3-4908-9426-ec8fc852e19d/content/images/2026/07/A5.png) Most models removed the earrings cleanly. GPT Image 2 removed the hoops but left tiny gold studs behind. The prompt specifically said not to add replacement jewellery. Qwen removed the earrings, although the nearby skin and facial shadows changed enough to notice when the images were placed together. Nano Banana 2, Seedream, Nano Banana Pro and FLUX passed. ### Test 6: Change the Scene to Blue Hour The final task changed the lighting and time of day. No objects could be added or removed, and the scene still needed physically believable light. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/21/2f/212fa2d6-dfa3-4908-9426-ec8fc852e19d/content/images/2026/07/E6.png) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/21/2f/212fa2d6-dfa3-4908-9426-ec8fc852e19d/content/images/2026/07/B6.png) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/21/2f/212fa2d6-dfa3-4908-9426-ec8fc852e19d/content/images/2026/07/D6.png) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/21/2f/212fa2d6-dfa3-4908-9426-ec8fc852e19d/content/images/2026/07/gpt_image_2_bluehour.png) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/21/2f/212fa2d6-dfa3-4908-9426-ec8fc852e19d/content/images/2026/07/C6-2.png) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/21/2f/212fa2d6-dfa3-4908-9426-ec8fc852e19d/content/images/2026/07/A6.png) Nano Banana Pro produced the most convincing light. The shadows, skin and remaining warmth looked photographic instead of filtered. Qwen was also strong. Seedream leaned more toward evening than true blue hour, but the result still looked believable. GPT Image 2 nearly passed. Then you notice the little orange light inside the bougainvillea. It looks like a miniature sun survived after the real one went down. FLUX understood the general idea, but the woman’s skin became too glowy and the mixed light looked less natural. Nano Banana 2 kept the scene believable and avoided the strange lighting mistakes. ## Price and Value These prices were checked on 24 July 2026\. I tested the six prompt-only models through WaveSpeed. Midjourney uses subscriptions and GPU time, so its price works differently. | Model | Price per image | Seven-run total | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ----------------------- | | [Nano Banana 2](https://wavespeed.ai/models/google/nano-banana-2/edit?ref=theseguysknow.io) | $0.105 | $0.74 | | [Seedream 5.0 Pro](https://wavespeed.ai/models/bytedance/seedream-v5.0-pro/edit?ref=theseguysknow.io) | $0.09 | $0.63 | | [Nano Banana Pro](https://wavespeed.ai/models/google/nano-banana-pro/edit?ref=theseguysknow.io) | $0.14 | $0.98 | | [GPT Image 2](https://wavespeed.ai/models/openai/gpt-image-2/edit?ref=theseguysknow.io) | Medium: $0.10 generation / $0.11 editHigh: $0.40 generation / $0.41 edit | $0.76 medium$2.86 high | | [Qwen Image 2.0 Pro](https://wavespeed.ai/models/wavespeed-ai/qwen-image-2.0-pro/edit?ref=theseguysknow.io) | $0.07 | $0.49 | | [FLUX.2 Max](https://wavespeed.ai/models/wavespeed-ai/flux-2-max/edit?ref=theseguysknow.io) | $0.07 | $0.49 | | [Midjourney V8.1](https://docs.midjourney.com/hc/en-us/articles/27870484040333-Comparing-Midjourney-Plans?ref=theseguysknow.io) | From $10/month | Not directly comparable | The seven-run total means one generation plus six independent edits. It excludes retries, failed requests and discounts. GPT Image 2 is the awkward one in the table. WaveSpeed charges separately by resolution and quality. The files confirm 2K output, but their metadata does not show whether I used the medium or high setting. That is the difference between a competitive $0.76 test and a much less cute $2.86. The dimensions also need context. Qwen, FLUX and GPT Image 2 returned smaller edits than their own source images. Nano Banana 2, Nano Banana Pro and Seedream kept the same pixel dimensions throughout. Keeping the same dimensions does not mean the image remained visually untouched. Almost every model introduced a tiny shift after editing. Place the source and edit beside each other and look closely. You may see a slightly pinker cast, smoother skin, harder contours or a small loss of the original texture. Most people will never notice it on Instagram. If you work with AI images every day, you see it. Nano Banana Pro handled this best. When I talk about preservation, I mean three separate things: - Did the file keep the same pixel dimensions? - Did the model preserve untouched objects, identity and composition? - Did it preserve the original texture and colour treatment? Nano Banana Pro did best on the third question. Nano Banana 2 gave the strongest complete result once accuracy and price were included. ## 1\. Nano Banana 2: The Best Complete Choice ![Nano Banana 2 Feature Image](https://storage.ghost.io/c/21/2f/212fa2d6-dfa3-4908-9426-ec8fc852e19d/content/images/2026/07/AI_Tools_Banner_1.png) Nano Banana 2 won because it caused the least drama. The source image already looked convincing. The flowers, cup, clothing and Mediterranean setting made sense together. More importantly, that logic survived the edits. The handbag disappeared without the chair turning into a new piece of furniture. LUNA became TGK without her expression changing. The burgundy blazer kept its structure and folds. The rose test passed even with decorative greenery around the flowers, which gave the model several easy ways to cheat the count. The earrings disappeared cleanly. Blue hour looked believable. None of those jobs sounds spectacular. Good. If I ask to remove earrings, I do not want a redesigned face, upgraded makeup and a mysterious new sunset in the background. I want the earrings gone. At the tested 2K tier, Nano Banana 2 cost $0.105 per image, compared with $0.14 for Nano Banana Pro. Seedream was slightly cheaper, but Nano Banana 2 gave me the safest balance of first-try accuracy and photographic quality. Nano Banana Pro still wins the last few percent of skin, shadows and expensive-looking finish. If I were choosing one hero image for a campaign and had time to inspect every detail, Pro could produce the prettier frame. For regular generation followed by several practical changes, I would choose Nano Banana 2. **TGK take:** The best complete model in this test. Nano Banana Pro still looks better at its best, but Nano Banana 2 listens better and costs less. ## 2\. Seedream 5.0 Pro: The Biggest Surprise ![Seedream 5.0 Pro Feature Image](https://storage.ghost.io/c/21/2f/212fa2d6-dfa3-4908-9426-ec8fc852e19d/content/images/2026/07/AI_Tools_Banner_2.png) Seedream used to feel like Nano Banana’s little brother. I used Seedream 4.0 and 4.5 because they were cheaper. They usually did the job, but they also had those familiar AI contours and a slightly semi-cartoon finish. Normal people who do not work with AI images every day probably would not notice. Once your eye is trained, you cannot unsee it. Seedream 5.0 Pro is a serious improvement. The source generation came close enough to Google’s results that my first reaction was: did I accidentally choose Nano Banana 2? The handbag removal stayed clean. The cup text worked. The clothing edit looked natural. The roses looked correct at first glance, but there are four visible blooms instead of exactly three, so that result is only partial. Removing the earrings did not wreck the nearby hair or ears. Blue hour leaned a little more toward evening, but the shadows were believable and the image still worked. There were small signs of processing when I looked closely. Editing near the face sometimes added a little glow, and the changed area could affect the colour or contours around it. Nearly every model did some version of this. With Seedream, it was slight. At $0.09 for 2K, it was cheaper than both Google models and kept its source dimensions through all six edits. If you are making social posts, marketing visuals or UGC-style images at volume, that difference adds up quickly. Seedream did not win because Nano Banana 2 was still the safer complete choice. It came much closer than I expected. **TGK take:** The model I am most likely to use more after this test. It no longer feels like the cheap substitute you open while wishing you had used Nano Banana. ## 3\. Nano Banana Pro: The Best Photorealism ![Nano Banana Pro Feature Image](https://storage.ghost.io/c/21/2f/212fa2d6-dfa3-4908-9426-ec8fc852e19d/content/images/2026/07/AI_Tools_Banner_3.png) Nano Banana Pro produced the most convincing pure photography. The source had the best physical logic. The chair looked right. The coffee cup sat naturally in the scene. The handbag was actually supported instead of floating beside the woman as if gravity had taken the afternoon off. Skin, materials and shadows looked premium. Teeth remain one of the easiest places to catch an AI portrait. If the lips are slightly parted and the prompt does not force the model to pay attention, you can still get the traditional little row of AI chaos. Sorry to my British mates, but sometimes it goes fully stereotypical British teeth. Pro handled the face well here. The editing accuracy was less perfect. When I removed the handbag, the chair gained new construction and partly changed style. The requested object disappeared, but Pro also redesigned the thing behind it. The TGK text was readable, although it looked slightly painted onto the cup rather than naturally printed into the material. The blazer edit was excellent. The rose image showed three visible blooms, but four stems appeared under the water. Google understood the headline instruction and missed the physical evidence beneath it. The blue-hour edit was the best in the test. The shadows, skin and mixed light looked photographic instead of filtered. That sums up Nano Banana Pro quite well. It can create the best-looking result while quietly losing a point on accuracy. At $0.14 per 2K image, it was the most expensive fixed-price model here. I would pay the premium for a final campaign image where the last layer of realism matters. I would not assume that the word Pro means it follows every small instruction better than Nano Banana 2. **TGK take:** Best photorealism, best light and the cleanest preservation of the original texture. Beautiful shadows still do not excuse invented chair parts or impossible flower stems. ## 4\. GPT Image 2: Almost Nano Quality, Less Nano Accuracy ![GPT Image 2 Feature Image](https://storage.ghost.io/c/21/2f/212fa2d6-dfa3-4908-9426-ec8fc852e19d/content/images/2026/07/AI_Tools_Banner_4.png) GPT Image 2 looked expensive before I even checked the price. The source image was excellent. Skin, fabric, glass, the café setting and the photographic finish came close to Nano Banana. The cup text was right, the handbag made physical sense and the three tulips were actually three tulips. I was impressed. Then I started editing. The handbag disappeared, but the chair behind it changed into a different chair. It looks perfectly fine if you see only the edit. Put it beside the source and the preservation mistake becomes obvious. The TGK replacement passed. The burgundy blazer passed. Both looked natural and kept the premium finish. The rose test failed. There are two visible white roses, not three. The earring edit did most of the job, but tiny gold studs remained after the hoops disappeared. The instruction explicitly said no replacement jewellery. Blue hour was almost good. The café turned properly cool and still looked believable. Then you notice the strange orange light inside the bougainvillea. One small, private sun apparently remained on duty. That difference between broad visual quality and small instruction accuracy explains the whole GPT Image 2 result. It looks close to the best models here. It did not preserve details like the best model here. The edits were also smaller than the source: 2048×2560 for the generation, 1792×2240 for most edits and 1712×2144 for the rose result. The price depends heavily on the WaveSpeed quality setting. At 2K medium, the seven-run sequence is competitive at $0.76\. At 2K high, it becomes $2.86. That can make sense for one polished final image. It becomes expensive very quickly when you are generating, correcting and testing images all day. **TGK take:** Genuinely impressive generation with nearly Nano-level finish. It landed fourth because the chair, rose count, leftover studs and tiny blue-hour sun were too many small misses for a premium editor. ## 5\. Qwen Image 2.0 Pro: Cheap, Good and Inconsistent ![QWEN 2.0 PRO Feature Image](https://storage.ghost.io/c/21/2f/212fa2d6-dfa3-4908-9426-ec8fc852e19d/content/images/2026/07/AI_Tools_Banner_5.png) Qwen surprised me too. The source had a good aesthetic, and several edits were much better than I expected from a model costing $0.07 per run. The TGK text passed. The jacket colour passed. Blue hour was excellent: cool, realistic and less theatrically orange than FLUX. Then it did Qwen things. The handbag-removal test rebuilt the chair and introduced a new structure. Again, the chair was not ugly. It simply was not the chair I asked it to preserve. The flower edit produced four visible roses with three stems in the water. Close, but “exactly three” was an instruction, not a mood. The earrings disappeared, although the nearby skin and facial shadows changed enough to notice when the images were placed together. Every edit also dropped from a 1080×1350 source to 928×1152. Qwen is difficult to summarise because it can produce a genuinely strong image and then move something unrelated during a very basic correction. For experiments, concepts and cheap volume, I would use it. For a client image with fixed products, identity or typography, I would inspect everything at full size. **TGK take:** Much better than “cheap model” suggests, especially for lighting. Too inconsistent to trust blindly. ## 6\. FLUX.2 Max: Fine, but I Expected More ![FLUX.2 Max Feature Image](https://storage.ghost.io/c/21/2f/212fa2d6-dfa3-4908-9426-ec8fc852e19d/content/images/2026/07/AI_Tools_Banner_6.png) FLUX was not terrible. I simply hoped it would be better. The first generation already had a problem with physical logic. The handbag appeared beside the woman, but it was not clearly resting on or hanging from anything. It was just there, enjoying its independence from the chair. The edits added more small compromises. Removing the handbag handled the obvious request but introduced the familiar processed finish. Replacing LUNA with TGK changed the woman’s expression. Her soft smile disappeared even though the prompt said nothing about her face. The jacket change was good. The flower test failed with two visible roses and three stems under the water. The earring removal worked. Blue hour was usable, but the skin became too glowy and the mixed light looked less natural than Seedream, Qwen or Nano Banana Pro. Like Qwen, every edit dropped to 928×1152. FLUX costs $0.07 per run, so it is not expensive. If it gives you the exact look you want, there is no reason to reject the image because I ranked it sixth. In this test, it created more unrelated changes than the models above it and looked weaker in the details when I zoomed in. **TGK take:** Usable and affordable. The weakest result compared with what I expected from it, especially when a tiny local edit changed the face or the entire finish. ## Midjourney V8.1: Still the Artistic One ![Midjourney V8.1 Feature Image](https://storage.ghost.io/c/21/2f/212fa2d6-dfa3-4908-9426-ec8fc852e19d/content/images/2026/07/AI_Tools_Banner_7.png) Midjourney remains its own thing. Its result looked different from the other six immediately. The colour treatment was more deliberate, the handbag and materials looked convincing, and the face had the polished visual confidence that made people obsessed with Midjourney in the first place. For illustrations, decorative images and work that should look properly art-directed rather than like ordinary UGC, it is still strong. It is also awkward for this kind of editing benchmark. Midjourney’s Editor expects the user to erase or select the target area before asking it to regenerate that section. Retexture can change the whole image, but that is a different workflow from uploading a source and typing “remove the handbag.” The extra manual decision affects the result, so I kept Midjourney out of the editing score. Its moderation is also much stricter than the other tools many creators use. Midjourney’s rules require SFW content and prohibit adult or sexualised imagery. A Mediterranean café photograph will not care. Fashion, body-focused work and anything the filters interpret aggressively can care a lot. There is no normal pay-per-image option. The Basic plan currently starts at $10 per month. That is reasonable if you plan to use Midjourney for a month of creative work and annoying if you only need one image. I would use Midjourney when the artistic treatment is the point. If I later needed simple prompt-only corrections, I would probably move the selected image into Seedream or Nano Banana. **TGK take:** The strongest artistic generator here, with stricter moderation and a more manual editing process. It does a different job from the six prompt-only editors. ## What Actually Changed After Editing The most useful thing I noticed was not one dramatic failure. It was the tiny change almost every model made. Even when the pixel dimensions stayed identical and the requested edit happened somewhere else, the result could pick up a slight pink cast, smoother skin, harder contours or a more processed finish. The area beside the edit was usually the most vulnerable. Remove an earring and the cheek shadow changes. Replace cup text and the smile moves. Recolour the clothing and suddenly the eyes pop more. Most normal viewers will not notice. People who work with AI images every day will. This is why “the model preserved the resolution” tells only part of the story. A file can remain 1856×2304 and still feel slightly less native than its source. Nano Banana Pro handled this best. Nano Banana 2 still won the complete test because it combined strong visual preservation with better instruction accuracy and a lower price. ## Which AI Image Model Should You Use? **Best complete choice** ### Nano Banana 2 Use it when you need reliable generation followed by several practical edits. It gave the safest balance of accuracy, quality and price. **Best final image** ### Nano Banana Pro Choose it when skin, shadows, light and the last few percent of realism matter more than price. **Best value** ### Seedream 5.0 Pro Ideal for social posts, marketing visuals and UGC-style images produced at volume. **Premium generation** ### GPT Image 2 Excellent finish and strong text editing, but inspect local edits carefully before approving the result. **Cheap experiments** ### Qwen Image 2.0 Pro Good for concepts and low-cost volume. It can look excellent, but unrelated details sometimes move. **Art direction** ### Midjourney V8.1 The strongest artistic option, although its stricter moderation and manual editor make it a different workflow. **If you specifically want FLUX** ### FLUX.2 Max Usable and affordable, but this test gave me no convincing reason to choose it over Qwen or Seedream. ## Final Verdict Overall winner ### Nano Banana 2 It passed all six edits and gave the best balance of instruction accuracy, photographic quality and price. 6/6 edits passed · $0.74 total Best photorealism ### Nano Banana Pro The strongest light, skin and physical texture—even when its editing accuracy was not perfect. Best value ### Seedream 5.0 Pro The model that improved most and came closest to upsetting the Google models. The drop between these models was much smaller than I expected. None of them was useless. Even the lower-ranked tools produced results most people would post without noticing anything wrong. The differences appeared when I stopped admiring the full image and looked at the boring details: flower stems, chair construction, facial expression, cheek shadows, cup text and whether the downloaded edit quietly became smaller. Nano Banana Pro created the best-looking light. GPT Image 2 came close to Nano-level quality, then lost points on small instructions. Seedream 5.0 Pro surprised me most. Midjourney stayed the artistic specialist. Qwen proved that cheap does not mean bad. It means you should check everything. FLUX was fine. I simply expected more. Nano Banana 2 won because it was the least likely to make me repair something I never asked it to touch. Boring sales pitch, I know. After testing these things all day, boring starts to look very good. #### Sources - [OpenAI GPT Image 2 documentation](https://developers.openai.com/api/docs/models/gpt-image-2?ref=theseguysknow.io) - [GPT Image 2 generation pricing](https://wavespeed.ai/models/openai/gpt-image-2/text-to-image?ref=theseguysknow.io) - [GPT Image 2 editing pricing](https://wavespeed.ai/models/openai/gpt-image-2/edit?ref=theseguysknow.io) - [Nano Banana 2 generation pricing](https://wavespeed.ai/models/google/nano-banana-2/text-to-image?ref=theseguysknow.io) - [Nano Banana 2 editing pricing](https://wavespeed.ai/models/google/nano-banana-2/edit?ref=theseguysknow.io) - [Nano Banana Pro generation pricing](https://wavespeed.ai/models/google/nano-banana-pro/text-to-image?ref=theseguysknow.io) - [Nano Banana Pro editing pricing](https://wavespeed.ai/models/google/nano-banana-pro/edit?ref=theseguysknow.io) - [Seedream 5.0 Pro generation pricing](https://wavespeed.ai/models/bytedance/seedream-v5.0-pro?ref=theseguysknow.io) - [Seedream 5.0 Pro editing pricing](https://wavespeed.ai/models/bytedance/seedream-v5.0-pro/edit?ref=theseguysknow.io) - [Qwen Image 2.0 Pro generation pricing](https://wavespeed.ai/models/wavespeed-ai/qwen-image-2.0-pro/text-to-image?ref=theseguysknow.io) - [Qwen Image 2.0 Pro editing pricing](https://wavespeed.ai/models/wavespeed-ai/qwen-image-2.0-pro/edit?ref=theseguysknow.io) - [FLUX.2 Max generation pricing](https://wavespeed.ai/models/wavespeed-ai/flux-2-max/text-to-image?ref=theseguysknow.io) - [FLUX.2 Max editing pricing](https://wavespeed.ai/models/wavespeed-ai/flux-2-max/edit?ref=theseguysknow.io) - [Midjourney plan pricing](https://docs.midjourney.com/hc/en-us/articles/27870484040333-Comparing-Midjourney-Plans?ref=theseguysknow.io) - [Midjourney Editor documentation](https://docs.midjourney.com/hc/en-us/articles/32764383466893-Editor?ref=theseguysknow.io) - [Midjourney community guidelines](https://docs.midjourney.com/hc/en-us/articles/32013696484109-Community-Guidelines?ref=theseguysknow.io)