Flux Ultra 1.1 vs Z-Image Turbo
Film grain, retro aesthetic, and nostalgic filters — see how these models compare with real AI-generated outputs.
Full comparisonCompare Models (select 4)
Vintage & retro visuals live or die by the details: believable film grain, period-accurate color response, gentle halation, and the kind of “imperfect” texture that feels authentic rather than added-on. On Influencer Studio, Flux Ultra 1.1 and Z-Image Turbo both handle text-to-image retro concepts, but they approach the look from different strengths—premium realism versus fast, flexible iteration.
This comparison focuses on how each model performs for film-era aesthetics (35mm/120 film, 70s–90s editorial, disposable camera vibes, faded prints), how controllable the nostalgic filter feel is, and what you get for the credits—16 per image for Flux Ultra 1.1 versus 8 per image for Z-Image Turbo.
Vintage & Retro — Side-by-Side Results
Prompt
"A late-20s woman with shoulder-length wavy brown hair in a faded band tee and high-waisted light-wash jeans holds her phone slightly above eye level, looking near the camera with a relaxed half-smile while standing in her small kitchen making iced coffee (mug, oat milk, messy counter in the background). Soft morning window light, casual candid framing like an Instagram story, warm nostalgic 90s disposable-camera look with film grain, faded colors, and a subtle orange light leak along one edge."
Feature Comparison
| Feature | Flux Ultra 1.1 | Z-Image Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Black Forest Labs | Tongyi Lab (Alibaba) |
| Subcategories | text-to-image | text-to-image, image-to-image |
| 1080p / 2k Mode | Yes | Yes |
| 4k Mode | No | No |
| NSFW Rating | Strict | Low |
| Aspect Ratio | 1:1, 16:9, 9:16, 3:4, 4:3, 21:9 | 1:1, 16:9, 9:16, 3:4, 4:3 |
| Starting Price | 16 credits | 8 credits |
Flux Ultra 1.1 Strengths
- Stronger photorealistic “film scan” feel: convincing grain structure, micro-texture, and natural-looking noise in shadows
- Higher fidelity to vintage lighting cues (soft halation, gentle bloom, and realistic highlight roll-off) when prompted
- Excellent detail retention even with retro treatments (aged paper, worn fabric, patina, dust/scratch overlays) without turning mushy
- More consistent results for close-ups (skin texture, hair, product labels) while keeping a nostalgic color grade
Z-Image Turbo Strengths
- Ultra-fast generation for rapid exploration of retro directions (multiple eras, palettes, and grain intensities) at lower cost
- LoRA support makes it easier to lock in a specific vintage recipe (e.g., 90s point-and-shoot, magazine flash, VHS-era styling) across many images
- Image-to-image helps transfer a nostalgic filter or film look onto an existing composition for consistent campaigns
- Cost-effective at 8 credits per image—useful for A/B testing grain, fade, and color casts before final selects
Verdict
If your priority is premium, photorealistic vintage imagery—where film grain looks embedded in the image rather than layered on—Flux Ultra 1.1 is the stronger choice, especially for hero shots and high-detail retro portraits or product scenes. The higher credit cost (16/image) is best justified when the final output needs to hold up under close inspection.
If you need speed, volume, and controllability for a consistent retro “preset” across many assets, Z-Image Turbo is the practical pick. At 8 credits per image plus LoRA support and image-to-image, it excels for iterating on nostalgic filters, dialing in era-specific aesthetics, and producing campaign-scale batches efficiently.
Frequently Asked Questions
More Comparisons by Category
Try Both Models Free
Sign up and get credits to test Flux Ultra 1.1, Z-Image Turbo, and all our other AI models for vintage & retro.
Join Influencer Studio Today
Start creating amazing AI-generated content for your brand