Comment by ruralfam

Just last night I was using Gemini "Fast" to test its output for a unique image we would have used in some consumer research if there had been a good stock image back in the day. I have been testing this prompt since the early days of AI images. The improvement in quality has been pretty remarkable for the same prompt. Composition across this time has been consistent. What I initially thought was "good enough" now is... fantastic. Just so many little details got more life-like w/ each new generation. Funnily enough, our images must be 3:2 aspect ratio. I kept asking GFast to change its square Fast output to 3:2. It kept saying it would, but each image was square or nearly square. GFast in the end was very apologetic, and said it would alert about this issue. Today I read that GPro does aspect ratios. Tried the same prompt again burning up some "Thinking" credits, and got another fantastically life-like image in 3:2. We have a new project coming up. We have relied entirely on stock or in some cases custom shot images to date. Now, apart from the time needed to get the prompts right whilst meeting with the client, I cannot see how stock or custom images can compete. I mean the GPro images -- again which is very specific to an unusual prompt -- is just "Wow". Want to emphasize again -- we are looking for specific details that many would not. So the thoughts above are specific to this. Still, while many faults can be found with AI, Nano Banana is certainly proven itself to me.

edit: I was thinking about this, and am not sure I even saw Pro3 as my image option last night. Today it was clearly there.