Flux 2 Pro vs Flux 1.1 Pro Ultra

Human skin is one of the most challenging subjects for image generation. Viewers are exceptionally attuned to skin texture—too smooth feels artificial, too detailed feels harsh. The interplay of subsurface scattering, fine hair, pores, and moisture creates complexity that separates premium models from standard ones.

In our testing, Flux 1.1 Pro Ultra's raw mode tended to produce skin with more natural variation—subtle imperfections, realistic pore patterns, and less aggressive airbrushing. Flux 2 Pro generated excellent skin textures but with a slightly more commercial, polished quality. For editorial or documentary portraiture, Pro Ultra's naturalism often felt more authentic.

Flux 1.1 Pro Ultra's 4MP default resolution provides genuine advantages for detail-rich subjects. With four times the pixels, intricate mechanisms, fine textures, and delicate patterns retain their definition even when cropped or printed large. The additional resolution isn't just upscaling—it's native detail that holds up under close inspection.

Flux 2 Pro at standard 1MP resolution still produces excellent detail for most uses, and its per-megapixel pricing means you only pay for the resolution you need. For web use or social media, 1MP is often sufficient. For large prints, wall art, or images that will be cropped significantly, Pro Ultra's higher native resolution becomes valuable.

Natural lighting—particularly mixed sources like window light combined with interior ambiance—requires models to understand subtle gradations, color temperature mixing, and how light interacts with atmospheric elements like steam or dust. Photorealism depends heavily on getting these interactions right.

Flux 1.1 Pro Ultra's raw mode often produced lighting that felt more photographically authentic—highlights that weren't perfectly exposed, shadows with retained detail, and color temperatures that mixed naturally. Flux 2 Pro's lighting tended toward idealized perfection, which works well for commercial imagery but can feel less organic for documentary or editorial styles.

Landscape photography demands consistent detail across foreground, midground, and background while maintaining atmospheric depth. The transition from sharp immediate detail to hazy distance must feel natural. Complex organic textures like heather, moving water, and weathered stone all require careful rendering.

Both models excelled at landscape generation, with Pro Ultra's higher resolution providing additional detail for fine landscape elements. The raw mode's reduced post-processing helped preserve atmospheric authenticity in misty scenes. Flux 2 Pro produced equally impressive landscapes with perhaps slightly more saturated colors and dramatic contrast—appealing for certain styles but less naturalistic.

For standard 1MP generation, Flux 2 Pro costs roughly half what Pro Ultra charges. If you need high resolution, the calculus changes: Pro Ultra delivers 4MP at a flat rate, while generating 4MP with Flux 2 Pro would cost about four times its base price. Per megapixel, Pro Ultra becomes more economical at higher resolutions. The question is whether you consistently need high resolution or prefer to pay for resolution only when necessary.

Workflow matters too. Flux 2 Pro's image-to-image capability means you can iterate on generated images—refining, extending, or restyling. Pro Ultra requires regeneration from scratch for any changes. For iterative creative work, Flux 2 Pro's flexibility can save both time and cost despite potentially higher per-image pricing.