Flux and it’s Limitations, Exploring SD3.5
Since the release of Flux, the model has undergone constant updates and gained a variety of fine-tuned versions from the community. Through experimentation, I’ve discovered that Flux is remarkably forgiving when training LoRAs, making it an excellent choice for creators. However, despite its strengths, Flux does have some notable limitations.One of the key advantages of Flux is its exceptional performance in realism. It surpasses many models, including most SD models, in areas like anatomy and overall quality. However, it tends to struggle with illustrations. After training multiple LoRAs, I noticed that Flux has difficulty rendering elements like wet or reflective skin and similar complex textures. These limitations suggest that while Flux shines in specific areas, it may not be the best option for all creative needs.This is where models like “SD3.5M & L” come into play. Although Flux is superior to most SD models in terms of realism and anatomical capabilities, SD3.5M & L excels in specific areas where Flux falters. For instance, SD3.5M handles reflective surfaces, wet skin, and intricate textural details with remarkable accuracy. This makes it a valuable alternative, particularly for creators focused on illustrations or scenarios requiring high levels of visual complexity.I encourage everyone to explore the SD3.5M model and other SD3.5 models and finetunes. While Flux dominates in many aspects , SD3.5M may offer unexplored advantages that can complement or even surpass Flux in certain applications. Broadening your experimentation with these models could reveal new possibilities and insights for creative workflows.
