[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"$fV5XbeYfluHCGeU5p6gr0LPOiMGlm_mJIjIN6lkbHsIo":3},{"modelA":4,"modelB":17,"comparisons":29,"seoContent":37,"isGenerating":130},{"slug":5,"name":6,"provider":7,"category":8,"capabilities":9,"pricing":15,"badge":16},"flux-2","Flux 2","Black Forest Labs","image",[10,11,12,13,14],"Text-to-image","Image-to-image editing","LoRA fine-tuning support","Up to 4MP resolution","Style transfer",[],"New",{"slug":18,"name":19,"provider":7,"category":8,"capabilities":20,"pricing":24,"badge":28},"flux-ultra","Flux Ultra 1.1",[10,21,22,23],"Ultra-high detail","Photorealistic output","Premium quality",[25],{"label":26,"credits":27},"Per image",16,"Premium",[30],{"id":31,"prompt":32,"modelAUrl":33,"modelBUrl":34,"mediaAStatus":35,"mediaBStatus":35,"mediaType":8,"status":35,"category":36},"cmlm4sk9x00bz4qxk3hq0dea0","Hyperrealistic DSLR-quality photo of a mid-20s woman with shoulder-length wavy dark brown hair and light freckles, wearing an oversized gray hoodie and black bike shorts, holding her phone slightly above eye level for a casual selfie while looking near the camera with a half-smile. She’s in a small sunlit kitchen making iced coffee, one hand stirring a glass cup on a cluttered counter (oat milk carton, keys, a messy fruit bowl), soft natural window light and realistic shadows with visible skin texture and natural imperfections. Candid Instagram-story vibe, unposed and relatable, true-to-life color and accurate light physics.","https:\u002F\u002Finfluencer-studio.b-cdn.net\u002Fproduction\u002Fshowcase\u002Fstock-photos\u002F7a6fc449-2a24-476b-96af-765b50615ca0.jpg","https:\u002F\u002Finfluencer-studio.b-cdn.net\u002Fproduction\u002Fshowcase\u002Fstock-photos\u002F4135cbbe-05f4-41f1-befe-0c21d1f24cb1.jpg","completed","photorealistic",{"metaTitle":38,"metaDescription":39,"introText":40,"modelAStrengths":41,"modelBStrengths":47,"verdict":52,"faqs":53,"shortAnswer":69,"bestForRows":70,"attributeScores":89,"whatExamplesShow":110,"methodology":121},"Flux 2 vs Flux Ultra 1.1: Photorealistic Comparison","Compare Flux 2 and Flux Ultra 1.1 for photorealistic images—detail, realism, editing, LoRA workflows, and credits per image.","\u003Cp>Flux 2 and Flux Ultra 1.1 are both built to create photorealistic images inside Influencer Studio, but they approach “camera-real” results differently. Flux Ultra 1.1 prioritizes premium realism and micro-detail in a single generation, while Flux 2 balances strong realism with broader creative control—especially when you need edits, iterations, or customization.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>If your goal is hyperrealistic renders that read as authentic photography (skin texture, natural lighting, believable materials, and clean backgrounds), the best choice depends on whether you value maximum out-of-the-box fidelity (Ultra 1.1) or a more flexible production workflow (Flux 2) that includes editing tools and LoRA support.\u003C\u002Fp>",[42,43,44,45,46],"Photorealistic output with flexible workflows: strong realism plus robust image-to-image editing for refining “photo-like” results","LoRA fine-tuning support for consistent photorealistic subjects, wardrobes, or brand aesthetics across many images","Up to 4MP output for sharper “camera-grade” detail, especially helpful for crops, product shots, and close-ups","Versatile editing capabilities (image-to-image, style transfer) to correct lighting, composition, and realism issues without restarting","Face-swap support for maintaining identity consistency in photorealistic influencer-style content",[48,49,50,51],"Exceptional out-of-the-box photorealism with premium detail—often closer to “straight from a camera” on first pass","Ultra-high detail rendering for textures like skin pores, fabric weave, hair strands, and realistic specular highlights","Strong natural lighting and material realism for scenes that need to look physically believable","Simple, premium-focused workflow when you mainly need best-possible generation quality rather than extensive editing","\u003Cp>\u003Cstrong>Choose Flux Ultra 1.1\u003C\u002Fstrong> when photorealism is the only priority and you want the highest perceived detail and realism with minimal iteration—especially for hero images, close-up portraits, and high-end product-style shots.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cstrong>Choose Flux 2\u003C\u002Fstrong> when you still want strong photorealism but also need control: iterative image edits, consistent identity via face-swap, and LoRA-based customization for repeatable, on-brand “real photo” campaigns. Cost-wise, Ultra 1.1 is also efficient at \u003Cstrong>16 credits\u002Fimage\u003C\u002Fstrong>, while Flux 2 ranges from \u003Cstrong>16–22 credits\u002Fimage\u003C\u002Fstrong> depending on the option you use.\u003C\u002Fp>",[54,57,60,63,66],{"question":55,"answer":56},"Which model looks most like a real photograph?","Flux Ultra 1.1 generally delivers the most “photography-indistinguishable” results out of the box, thanks to its premium detail and realism. Flux 2 can also reach highly photorealistic results, especially when you iterate with image-to-image edits.",{"question":58,"answer":59},"Which is better for consistent photorealistic people across a series?","Flux 2 is typically better for series consistency because it supports LoRA fine-tuning workflows and includes face-swap support—useful for keeping identity, styling, and brand look consistent across multiple scenes.",{"question":61,"answer":62},"Do both models support photorealistic editing after generation?","Flux 2 explicitly supports image-to-image editing and style transfer, making it easier to fix realism issues (lighting direction, skin texture, reflections, background artifacts). Flux Ultra 1.1 is primarily positioned as premium text-to-image generation.",{"question":64,"answer":65},"How do the credit costs compare for photorealistic work?","Flux Ultra 1.1 is 16 credits per image. Flux 2 is 22 credits per image on Standard, or 16 credits per image on the Klein 9B option—so the best value depends on which Flux 2 mode meets your realism and workflow needs.",{"question":67,"answer":68},"Which model is better for high-resolution photorealistic outputs?","Flux 2 supports up to 4MP output, which can help maintain sharpness for detailed crops and print-like compositions. Flux Ultra 1.1 emphasizes ultra-high detail and premium realism; choose based on whether you prioritize maximum output resolution (Flux 2) or premium single-pass fidelity (Ultra 1.1).","Short answer: Flux 2 is better for style control & LoRA workflows, while Flux Ultra 1.1 is better for premium photoreal detail. If you are creating photorealistic, start with Flux 2 because it costs fewer credits per output and lets you test more directions, then switch to Flux Ultra 1.1 for polished, higher-resolution final assets.",[71,74,77,80,83,86],{"need":72,"pick":6,"why":73},"Lower-cost exploration and more variants per credit","Flux 2 costs null credits to start, so you can test more directions for less.",{"need":75,"pick":19,"why":76},"Polished, ready-to-ship final assets","Flux Ultra 1.1 produces stronger final-asset polish for campaign-ready output.",{"need":78,"pick":6,"why":79},"Readable text in designs, overlays, and packaging","Flux 2 renders labels and typography more cleanly.",{"need":81,"pick":6,"why":82},"Editing and reference-driven iteration","Flux 2 is more flexible for editing from references or existing outputs.",{"need":84,"pick":6,"why":85},"Consistent characters and repeated campaign visuals","Flux 2 holds character and style consistency better across outputs.",{"need":87,"pick":19,"why":88},"Photorealistic specifically","Flux Ultra 1.1 scores higher on realism, which matters most for photorealistic.",[90,95,100,102,104,106,108],{"criteria":91,"aScore":92,"bScore":93,"winner":94},"Realism",4,5,"B",{"criteria":96,"aScore":97,"bScore":98,"winner":99},"Text accuracy",3,2,"A",{"criteria":101,"aScore":93,"bScore":98,"winner":99},"Editing flexibility",{"criteria":103,"aScore":92,"bScore":97,"winner":99},"Cost efficiency",{"criteria":105,"aScore":92,"bScore":93,"winner":94},"Final polish",{"criteria":107,"aScore":93,"bScore":92,"winner":99},"Consistency",{"criteria":109,"aScore":92,"bScore":97,"winner":99},"Best first test",[111,113,115,118],{"label":91,"text":112},"Flux Ultra 1.1 tends to produce more natural skin texture, lighting, and detail in these outputs.",{"label":96,"text":114},"Flux 2 renders any labels, overlays, or typography more cleanly.",{"label":116,"text":117},"Commercial usability","Flux Ultra 1.1 is closer to a ready-to-use image asset; Flux 2 is better for concepting.",{"label":119,"text":120},"Recommended next step","Use Flux 2 for first-pass variants, then Flux Ultra 1.1 for final polish.",{"lastUpdated":122,"modelsCompared":123,"useCase":124,"bestForA":125,"bestForB":126,"avoidA":127,"avoidB":128,"creditsA":129,"creditsB":27},"June 8, 2026","Flux 2 vs Flux Ultra 1.1","Photorealistic","style control & LoRA workflows","premium photoreal detail","Accurate rendered text is your top priority","You need editing, text accuracy, or low-cost iteration",null,false]