Follow ZDNET: Add us as a preferred source on Google.
ZDNET’s key takeaways
- Images 2.0 delivers accurate text and usable graphics.
- It can match brand styles, including ZDNET visuals.
- Errors still slip in, requiring human review.
Earlier this week, OpenAI unveiled ChatGPT Images 2.0, its new image generation engine. Key to this release is a jump in functionality from creating “decorations” (OpenAI’s term) to full-page graphics, including detailed text.
I had early access to a pre-release version. It worked quite well, but kept messing up on the ZDNET logo. Now that the product has been officially released, I’m giving it an in-depth test across a wide range of challenges.
Images 2.0 is available to all ChatGPT tiers, but the more capable language features are only available to paying tiers that can use the Thinking model. I’m running all these tests using a ChatGPT Plus account with Thinking turned on.
Also: I put GPT-5.5 through a 10-round test: It scored 93/100, losing points only for exuberance
Let’s get started with the ZDNET branding exercises. Rather than just uploading ZDNET pages and having it find the logo on the page, I created a standalone image of the ZDNET logo and uploaded that with each prompt. That seemed to help tremendously.
[One quick note: ZDNET doesn’t permit OpenAI to scrape its pages. Ziff Davis, ZDNET’s parent company, filed an April 2025 lawsuit against OpenAI, alleging it infringed Ziff Davis copyrights in training and operating its AI systems. So I used a Chrome extension to capture full-screen screenshots of the articles I wanted to test with Images 2.0. That’s how ChatGPT was able to read them.]
Can Images 2.0 preserve the ZDNET logo?
My starting point was the article I previously wrote about Images 2.0. I fed ChatGPT this prompt: “Create a detailed and vivid infographic of this article using the ZDNET brand style and the attached ZDNET logo.”
Not only is the logo correct, but the coloring is perfect for ZDNET. But where the image really shines is its use of text. All the text is correct, even the tiny text on an angle in the image.
Can it produce styled sketchnotes?
Next, I decided to revisit the sketchnotes challenge I gave to Google’s Nano Banana a few months ago. The assignment at that time was to create a sketchnotes version of the US Bill of Rights. Nano Banana did a great job with the images, but I had to try over and over (and over) to convince it to get the wording right. Read the article to see the hoops I had to jump through.
Also: I used Nano Banana 2 to make perfect sketchnotes: 5 lessons learned
For ChatGPT Images 2.0, I upped the stakes slightly. I wanted sketchnotes, but I wanted them in ZDNET’s branding style. I’m playing up the branding style throughout this article because that’s one way ChatGPT Images 2.0 could provide real value to users.
Here’s the first prompt: “Make me a sketchnote of the US Bill of Rights. Use the ZDNET logo style and make the sketchnotes in the ZDNET style.” That’s the image on the left. Here’s the second prompt: “Include the ZDNET logo and add more neon-style colors, perhaps on a black background.” That’s the image on the right.
First, notice that the text is correct. There are no duplicates. Nothing is missing. Already, this is head and shoulders above Nano Banana’s performance. Both versions fit with ZDNET’s style. The only thing I’m not thrilled with is that the ZDNET logo looks jammed in on the second image. Even so, the logo is correct, and I could probably do a few more prompt passes to get it placed better.
Wacky fun with an infographic
But now we come to the unforced error my testing set revealed. I asked Images 2.0 to convert my AI website builder shootout article to an infographic. It produced a fairly usable, if somewhat busy, infographic. It even went to the internet and added information I didn’t have in the article, like base pricing.
But there are four clear errors:
- The header highlights “here are 9 of the best AI website builders.” It even makes the “9” stand out. Except that only five website builders were reviewed. Lower in the infographic, it shows the five I do review. Oops.
- The services I reviewed were Hostinger, GoDaddy, Wix, 10Web, and Squarespace. ChatGPT decided, for some reason, to replace 10Web with Durable (a competitor to 10Web). I didn’t review Durable. I didn’t even mention Durable. Wacky.
- The AI produced a summary table for the services, listing star ratings for ease of use, design flexibility, and AI features. But I didn’t provide star ratings for these categories. The AI was overly generous toward some vendors, in a way that was directly contrary to the review text itself. Odd.
- Finally, and this is a nit, but still. Way down at the bottom, where the AI correctly reproduced the ZDNET logo, there’s a drooping line just above it. Why?
Also: The best AI image generators: There’s only one clear winner now
To be fair, these are all errors an in-house human graphic designer might produce in a first draft. In my years as a founder and a product manager, I’ve certainly seen more egregious graphics errors come back from my designers on their first drafts.
When I re-prompted Images 2.0 with corrections (except for the star ratings, which I didn’t correct in the second image), it did correctly modify the infographic with more appropriate information.
ChatGPT Images has come a long way
This Images 2.0 release is a huge improvement over previous versions. The ChatGPT Images version I looked at last year was impressive, especially for recontextualizing images.
Also: I got an early look at ChatGPT Images 2.0, and it’s impressive – with one exception
This new version, which can interpret actual content and then create images, is a huge leap over previous builds. More to the point, it can deliver very tangible business value, which makes it worth a lot not only for fun pictures but for real work.
Stay tuned, because I’ll be looking at how this build compares with Google Gemini’s Nano Banana. I’ll be pushing it even further to see what other work-related tasks it can help with, particularly when it comes to user interface design.
How comfortable are you relying on AI-generated visuals, knowing that the model can introduce subtle factual errors? Let us know in the comments below.
You can follow my day-to-day project updates on social media. Be sure to subscribe to my weekly update newsletter, and follow me on Twitter/X at @DavidGewirtz, on Facebook at Facebook.com/DavidGewirtz, on Instagram at Instagram.com/DavidGewirtz, on Bluesky at @DavidGewirtz.com, and on YouTube at YouTube.com/DavidGewirtzTV.
