AI image generation has become a growing point of comparison among tech users, and the focus has now shifted beyond text. As curiosity rises, many users are testing identical prompts across platforms to see which system produces more realistic and usable images. This trend has intensified after OpenAI upgraded ChatGPT’s image generation model, placing it in direct competition with Google’s Gemini Nano Banana Pro.
For years, AI-generated images faced criticism for unrealistic visuals and obvious flaws. Blurred backgrounds, overly polished faces, and distorted hands damaged their credibility. As a result, such images earned the label of low-quality AI visuals. However, this perception is now changing, especially within the stock image space.
OpenAI’s recent upgrade has significantly improved ChatGPT’s image realism. When tested, images showed fewer artificial markers. The heavy blur and plastic-like finish appeared reduced. Consequently, the outputs looked more suitable for articles, marketing materials, and social media use.
To evaluate performance fairly, both systems were tested using identical prompts focused on practical stock image scenarios. One prompt requested an image of a person listening to a podcast in an office. In this case, Nano Banana Pro delivered a more convincing image. Small imperfections, including slightly messy hair and a softer background, added authenticity. Meanwhile, ChatGPT’s image appeared clean and sharp but felt overly perfect.
Another test involved generating a promotional image of someone reading a book. Once again, Nano Banana Pro leaned closer to realism. The lighting and posture felt natural. In contrast, ChatGPT’s version showed signs of staged composition. The image looked computer-generated rather than candid.
However, ChatGPT gained ground in another category. When asked to produce a generic stock image for an article, ChatGPT delivered a usable result. Although the image still felt somewhat artificial, it met basic editorial needs. Nano Banana Pro, on the other hand, produced an abstract and self-referential design that failed the stock image requirement.
A final test focused on depicting leadership challenges in a workplace setting. Both platforms generated familiar office scenes. The images lacked creativity but met the prompt. Still, Nano Banana Pro once again edged ahead due to more natural visual cues.
Overall, AI image generation is advancing rapidly, but perfection remains elusive. Nano Banana Pro currently holds a slight lead in realism. However, ChatGPT has narrowed the gap significantly in a short time. As development continues, the distinction between real photography and AI-generated images is becoming increasingly difficult to spot.
