Midjourney just dropped version 7 and the improvements are immediately noticeable. It's 40% faster, renders way better detail, and—finally—gets human hands right most of the time. After spending the past week creating images for work projects and personal experiments, I'm genuinely impressed.
Also slightly concerned about how good this is getting, but we'll get to that.
The Speed Difference Is Real
Forty percent faster sounds like marketing speak until you actually use it. V6 would take 30-45 seconds for a single image. V7 consistently delivers in 18-25 seconds. When you're iterating on ideas, that adds up fast.
I was working on concept art for a client presentation. Previously I'd generate a batch, go get coffee, come back to review. Now it's fast enough that I can stay in flow state. Generate, tweak prompt, generate again. The feedback loop is tight enough to feel productive.
Someone I know who creates content for social media said this changes her workflow completely. She can now generate multiple options, pick the best, and make variations in the time it used to take to create one image. That's a competitive advantage when you're fighting for attention.
The Technical Improvements
The rendering quality is noticeably better. Fine details like fabric texture, architectural elements, and lighting effects are more realistic. Not photorealistic—you can still tell it's AI—but the uncanny valley is getting narrower.
The hands thing is huge though. Previous versions would mangle hands in creative ways. Too many fingers, joints bending wrong, fingers merging together. V7 still occasionally messes up, but maybe 1 in 10 images instead of 8 in 10.
Same with text rendering in images. V6 struggled with legible text. V7 can do street signs, book covers, storefront names. Not perfectly, but well enough for concept work.
Testing It On Different Use Cases
First test: product visualization. I needed mockups of a tech gadget in different environments. V7 handled reflections, shadows, and depth of field convincingly. The client approved the concepts without realizing they were AI-generated until I mentioned it.
Second test: character consistency. Asked it to generate the same character in different poses and settings. Previous versions would drift—similar but not identical. V7 maintains consistency much better. Not perfect, but usable for storyboarding.
Third test: architectural rendering. This is where V7 really shines. Generated interior spaces that look professionally photographed. The lighting, materials, and spatial relationships are coherent in ways earlier versions struggled with.
Where It Still Fails
Hands and text are better but not perfect. Complex machinery still comes out looking vaguely correct but wrong upon close inspection. Multiple people interacting in realistic ways is hit or miss.
And it still has the "AI look." There's a quality to the rendering—a slight softness, certain color palettes, compositional choices—that makes AI art identifiable. Good for some uses, problematic for others.
The ethical issues haven't changed. It's trained on massive datasets that include copyrighted work. Artists whose style it learned from see it as theft. That's a legitimate concern that faster rendering doesn't address.
The Creative Workflow Changes
Here's what's interesting: I'm using Midjourney differently now. It's not "generate final art" anymore—it's "rapid prototyping tool for visual ideas."
I'll generate concepts, import them into Photoshop, refine with traditional tools. Or use them as references for human artists. Or as placeholders in mockups. The speed makes it practical for exploration rather than just final output.
A designer friend said V7 basically replaced the mood boarding phase. Instead of collecting images, she generates exactly what she's imagining. Faster than searching stock photo sites, more specific than hoping you'll find what you need.
The Commercial Viability Question
Can you use V7 images commercially? Legally, Midjourney says yes if you have a paid subscription. Practically, it's complicated.
Some clients don't care—they want results fast. Others specifically prohibit AI-generated assets due to copyright concerns. You need to check contracts carefully.
There's also the reputation risk. If your audience finds out you used AI and cares about that, it might backfire. The art community has strong feelings about this, and public perception varies wildly.
Comparing to Competitors
DALL-E 3 is still better for photorealism. Stable Diffusion offers more control if you're technical. But Midjourney V7 hits a sweet spot—great results without needing to understand model parameters and LoRAs and all that.
The ease of use matters. I can describe what I want in plain English and get usable results. Not perfect, but good enough for most applications. That's powerful.
Pricing is reasonable too. The basic plan at $10/month works for casual use. I'm on the Pro plan at $60/month for unlimited generations, which pays for itself quickly compared to stock photo subscriptions or commissioning custom art.
The Elephant in the Room: Is This Art?
I'm not going to definitively answer that because smarter people than me are debating it. What I will say: it's a tool that produces useful images quickly.
Is photography art? People debated that for decades. Is digital art "real" art? Same debate. Tools change what's possible and who can create. Sometimes that's threatening to established artists, sometimes it democratizes creativity.
What's undeniable: V7 makes visual creation accessible to people who can't draw or don't have budgets for custom art. That has value, even if it creates tension with professional artists.
Practical Advice If You're Using It
Don't use it for final production without review. The detail is good enough now that errors are subtle. Check carefully.
Be honest about using AI when it matters. Some contexts demand transparency. Hiding AI use can backfire spectacularly if discovered.
Think of it as a collaborator, not a replacement. The best results come from human direction plus AI execution. You still need taste, judgment, and the ability to evaluate what works.
What This Means For Creative Work
The speed and quality improvements mean AI art tools are no longer "interesting experiments"—they're production-ready for many applications. Marketing, game development, film pre-production, product design—all areas where rapid visualization matters.
That's disruptive to some creative jobs, helpful for others. Junior designers might find work harder to come by. Senior creatives with strong vision can be more productive. Like most technology, it shifts who does what, not necessarily reduces total need.
My Take After a Week
Midjourney V7 is noticeably better than V6. If you tried earlier versions and bounced off, this might be worth another look. If you're already using it, the speed alone makes it worth upgrading.
I'm using it more than I expected to, but not as a replacement for everything. It's one tool among many. For certain tasks—rapid concept exploration, placeholder images, brainstorming visual directions—it's fantastic.
For finished work that needs to be perfect? I'm still combining AI with traditional tools and human expertise. The technology isn't there yet for completely autonomous creation, at least not for professional applications where quality matters.
The pace of improvement is wild though. V6 launched less than a year ago. If this rate continues, where will we be in another year? That's exciting and slightly unsettling.
For now, I'm enjoying having a tool that lets me visualize ideas faster than ever before. Whether that's making me more creative or just making me faster at producing mediocre work—jury's still out on that one.
The capability is real though. What we choose to do with it is up to us.