OpenAI GPT Image 1.5: Is It Actually Good? Complete Analysis

Every time OpenAI drops something new, my Twitter feed explodes with people calling it either "the future of everything" or "complete garbage." Neither is usually true.

So when GPT Image 1.5 launched on December 16, 2025, I decided to actually test it rather than just react to the announcement. I spent about 12 hours running it through various scenarios I actually use for work. Here's my honest take.

Quick Answer: It's good. Not life-changing, but genuinely good. The editing preservation is the real headline feature and it actually works. Text rendering went from "unusable" to "mostly reliable." Speed improvements are noticeable. Will it replace your existing workflow? Probably not entirely. But it earns a place in the toolbox.

So Is It Actually Good for Basic Generation?

Let me be direct: for basic "generate me an image of X" prompts, GPT Image 1.5 is... fine? It's not going to blow your mind compared to what's already out there.

The Realism Test

I generated about 30 photorealistic images across different subjects. People, architecture, products, landscapes. Results were consistently clean. Faces look natural, lighting makes sense, compositions work.

Hands are still weird sometimes. I know, I know, everyone says this about every AI model. But it's true. Maybe 1 in 5 images has a hand that makes you go "wait, that's not how fingers work." Better than it used to be, still not solved.

The 1970s London crowd scene that OpenAI showed in their demo? I tried similar prompts. It's impressive. Multiple faces that don't all look like the same person copy-pasted. That's progress.

Where Artistic Generation Falls Short

Here's where I get frustrated. The model understands broad style categories really well. "Oil painting style" works. "Anime aesthetic" works. "Film noir lighting" works.

But nuance? Forget it.

I tried "slightly desaturated, with a subtle film grain, reminiscent of early 2000s digital photography." What I got was either full desaturation or no visible change. The model doesn't do "slightly" or "subtle" well.

For precise artistic control, you still need proper tools. ComfyUI with the right models, or platforms like Apatero.com that give you actual parameter control.

The Editing Is Where This Thing Shines

Okay, here's where I genuinely got excited. The editing capabilities are not marketing fluff. They actually work.

What I Mean By "Actually Works"

Let me tell you what happened with the old model. I'd generate a portrait, love the face, but the background was wrong. I'd say "change the background to a beach." The new image would have a beach background and a completely different person.

This happened constantly. It was infuriating. I'd sometimes spend an hour regenerating the same basic edit trying to keep the face intact.

GPT Image 1.5? I ran the same test. Generated a portrait, asked to change the background. Same face. Same exact face. I nearly fell out of my chair.

Types of Edits That Actually Work Now

Adding stuff: Drop a person into a scene, add text to a sign, insert a product into someone's hands. The new elements match lighting and perspective. It looks natural.

Removing stuff: Take out background distractions, remove a person from a group shot, clean up clutter. The fills are smart, not smeared.

Selective transformation: This is wild. You can literally transform part of an image to a different style while keeping the rest photorealistic. Turn one person into an anime character, leave their friend as a photo.

What Still Doesn't Work

Fine adjustments are rough. "Make the logo 10% bigger" often produces a completely new logo. The model thinks in categories, not increments.

Color grading is inconsistent. Sometimes "warm up the shadows" works perfectly. Sometimes nothing changes. Sometimes it turns everything orange. I couldn't find a pattern.

Repositioning doesn't really work. "Move the person to the left" regenerates a new person on the left. Not what you want.

Text Rendering: From Garbage to Decent

I've made fun of AI text rendering for years. "COFEFE SHOP" became a meme in my friend group. Every AI model produced beautiful images with gibberish text.

GPT Image 1.5 is the first model where I'd actually trust it for graphics with text in them.

What I Tested

I generated a fake magazine cover. Headline, subheadlines, pull quotes, body text. Maybe 150 words total.

Result? The headline was perfect. Subheadlines were perfect. Body text was probably 92% accurate. A couple letter swaps in the small text. But readable. Actually readable.

For mockups, social media graphics, concept presentations... this is good enough. You might regenerate once for perfection, but you're not fighting the model anymore.

The Limits

Small text is still unreliable. Product labels, fine print, anything tiny. Don't trust it.

Non-English text is rough. I tried Japanese and got... something that looked Japanese-ish but probably says nonsense. Stick to English or add text in post.

Long passages accumulate errors. First paragraph is usually clean, second paragraph starts showing mistakes. For text-heavy images, less is more.

Speed Difference: This Actually Matters

The 4x speed claim sounded like marketing. It's not.

Before: 20-30 seconds per image. Long enough that you'd check Twitter while waiting. Long enough that you'd accept "good enough" results to avoid another wait.

Now: 5-8 seconds. Quick enough that generating feels like browsing. Try something, see it almost immediately, try something else.

This changes how you work. I found myself experimenting more because failed experiments don't cost much time. The total quality of my output improved because I was iterating instead of settling.

For Professional Work: It Depends

Marketing and Social Content

Hot take: for most marketing use cases, GPT Image 1.5 is now good enough to be your primary tool.

Quick concepts, social graphics, blog headers, presentation images. The combination of speed, quality, and working text rendering hits a sweet spot. You can go from idea to usable image in under a minute.

E-commerce

Product variations work really well. Got one good product shot? Generate it on different backgrounds, different contexts, different color variants. The preservation during edits means your product stays looking like your product.

Serious Illustration Work

Eh. It's a starting point, not a finish line.

For concepting and rapid iteration, GPT Image 1.5 saves time. For final portfolio-quality work, you still want proper tools with proper control. ComfyUI, dedicated illustration software, or services built for professional output.

Character Design

This is where it still sucks, honestly.

You cannot maintain a consistent character across multiple images. Generate a character you love, come back tomorrow, and you'll get someone similar but different. For anything requiring character consistency across a project, you need LoRA training or platforms like Apatero.com that handle this problem specifically.

I wrote a whole guide on creating consistent AI faces because this problem is so common.

Compared to Everything Else

Versus DALL-E 3

It's better. Just use GPT Image 1.5 if you were using DALL-E 3. Better editing, better text, faster, cheaper API. No reason not to upgrade.

Versus Midjourney

Different tools for different jobs. Midjourney has a look. You know it when you see it. Some people love that aesthetic, some people find it samey. GPT Image 1.5 is more neutral but has better editing.

My take? Midjourney for stylized aesthetic work. GPT Image 1.5 for practical editing and iteration work. They coexist.

Versus Local Models

If you're running ComfyUI with custom models and LoRAs, you have more control than GPT Image 1.5 will ever offer. But you're also managing infrastructure, troubleshooting dependencies, and investing time in setup.

GPT Image 1.5 is the "I just want this to work" option. Local is the "I want maximum control" option. Both are valid.

The Limitations You Should Know About

No Character Persistence

I cannot stress this enough. Every new conversation is a blank slate. "Generate the same character from yesterday" means nothing to this model.

Content Restrictions

OpenAI's safety filters block some legitimate creative work. It's not just NSFW stuff. Certain compositions, historical scenarios, or edgy creative concepts trigger rejections. If you hit these limits often, you need different tools.

No Fine Control

You get what natural language can express. No CFG scale. No step count. No sampler selection. What you describe in words is what you might get.

No Reproducibility

Generated something perfect? Hope you saved it. No seeds, no way to regenerate the exact same image later.

Should You Use It?

Yes if:

• You want quick generation without technical setup
• You need to edit images while preserving specific elements
• Text in images matters for your use case
• Speed of iteration matters more than maximum quality
• You're already in the ChatGPT ecosystem

Maybe not if:

• Character consistency across multiple images is critical
• You need precise artistic control over every parameter
• Content policies conflict with your creative needs
• Maximum quality matters more than speed

Frequently Asked Questions

Is it free?

Available to all ChatGPT users, including free tier. Higher rate limits for paid plans.

Better than DALL-E 3?

Yes. Meaningful improvements in editing, text, speed, and instruction following.

Can it replace Photoshop?

For AI-friendly edits like adding/removing elements, style changes, quick mockups. For precise pixel editing and professional retouching, no.

Good for AI influencer content?

For single images, yes. For consistent characters across multiple images, no. You need specialized tools for that.

How's the text accuracy really?

Headlines and short text: very reliable. Paragraphs: 90-95% accurate. Fine print: unreliable.

Commercial use okay?

Yes per OpenAI's terms.

Works on mobile?

Yes, through ChatGPT app.

Can I get the exact same image twice?

No reliable way to reproduce exact results. Save what you like when you get it.

The Verdict

GPT Image 1.5 is good. Emphasis on "good," not "revolutionary" or "game-changing" or whatever hyperbole the announcement tweets used.

The editing preservation is genuinely impressive and solves real problems. The text rendering is finally usable. The speed makes iteration practical.

It's not going to replace specialized tools for specialized needs. Character consistency still requires dedicated solutions. Professional illustration still needs proper software. Maximum quality still means custom workflows.

But for quick concepts, editing tasks, and everyday image needs? GPT Image 1.5 earns its place. It's the first version of ChatGPT images I'd actually recommend to people.

Try it. Generate something, ask for an edit, see if the original details stay intact. That's the test that matters. For me, it passed.