I tested ChatGPT image editing so you don't have to. The results surprised me.
Four tests. No cherry-picking. ChatGPT vs. Nano Banana, side by side.
I’ve been skeptical about AI image editing for a long time.
Not because the demos weren’t impressive. They always are.
But demos are picked. Best 1 in 20. The other 19 stay hidden.
So I ran my own test. Three real scenarios. Same prompts, same images, two tools side by side.
I went in expecting “interesting but not useful.”
I came out thinking differently.
What’s in this piece
⚡ How prompt detail changes everything
💀 Where adding objects into a photo quietly breaks
🧭 The most useful test for designers
🛠️ The honest winner after all three rounds
Test 1: prompt detail
A man standing next to a rally car. Nice outfit, real location.
The brief: replace the car with something more premium. Change the background. Adjust the pose.
I ran the same test three times with increasing prompt detail.
One vague sentence first: “replace the rally car with a beautiful car. change the background and the man’s position.”
The result from both tools was fine. The pose changed. A more premium car appeared. Both did the job.
Then I added specifics. The exact car. The outfit to keep. The new environment. The lighting direction. The photorealistic style requirement.
Both tools handled the pose change naturally. The man’s weight shifted believably. The new car sat correctly. Side by side, the only real difference was taste.
I added even more detail on the third pass. Nano Banana started to look more fake. ChatGPT held up.
Both passed this test. The gap was small.
Test 2: adding objects to a photo
An espresso shot on a dark green surface. Good light, strong shadow.
The brief: add a Snickers bar and a Coca-Cola can into the composition.
Harder than it sounds. Objects need to match the light source. Shadows need to go the right direction. The scale needs to feel like everything was shot together.
ChatGPT placed both objects in believable positions. But the espresso shadow was wrong. The can sat at the wrong size.
Nano Banana got the can size and shadow closer to right.
Second round. An image of open hands. Add a Five Guys meal: bag, burger, branded wrapper.
Second round. An image of open hands. Add a Five Guys meal: bag, burger, branded wrapper.
AI is still not friends with hands. Neither version landed. Judge for yourself.
Test 3: UI from the reference
This one mattered most for my work.
I took a profile card UI. Simple layout, clear visual identity. I asked both tools to generate a new screen in the same style.
ChatGPT produced a Loyalty Card. Type hierarchy matched. The card structure felt consistent. The colour logic carried over. Side by side, they looked like the same product.
Nano Banana stayed closer to the original layout but missed the UX. The brief was "loyalty card." What it returned was the profile card with different text.
Test 4: UI from a reference
I gave both tools an existing mockup and asked them to apply Anthropic’s branding.
ChatGPT found the logo and the colour palette on its own. Nano Banana didn’t.
What actually worked
👉 ChatGPT and Nano Banana are roughly equal for raw image editing. Pick by taste, not capability.
👉 Neither one handles hands. Both fall apart when fingers are in the frame.
👉 ChatGPT wins on UI and context. It read the brief, not just the layout.
The honest take
Now I use ChatGPT for two things.
Mockups: I pull a Pinterest reference and drop my work into it.
UI exploration: I take a reference screen and generate new concepts in the same style.
The tool earned its place in the workflow. That’s all the verdict I needed.
