AI image detector
Gemini & Nano Banana image detector
Google marks the images its models create in more than one way: an invisible SynthID watermark, an IPTC label and, increasingly, Content Credentials. GPTTrace reads the labels it can and runs its own neural check on the rest.
Free · no sign-up · your file never leaves your device
Drop a suspected Gemini image, click to choose, or paste
JPEG · PNG · WebP · AVIF · HEIC (Safari) — checked on your device
Google’s three labels
Google has taken a layered approach to marking AI images from Gemini, Imagen and the Nano Banana editing model. Each layer survives different things.
SynthID — in the pixels
SynthID is an invisible watermark woven into the image while it is generated. It is built to survive cropping, resizing, colour changes and compression. The trade-off is that it can only be read by Google: there is no public specification and no open detector. When someone online claims their tool “detects SynthID”, they almost always mean they detect the metadata described below.
IPTC digital source type — in the metadata
Google also writes the industry-standard IPTC field that declares an image as created by a trained algorithm. Photo apps and social networks that read this field may show a label such as “AI info” or “Made with Google AI”. GPTTrace reads it from XMP and reports it as proof.
Content Credentials — signed metadata
Google is a steering member of the C2PA coalition and has been adding signed Content Credentials to images from its products. Where they exist, GPTTrace shows the signer and the recorded actions.
Metadata can be stripped by a screenshot or an upload; SynthID cannot easily be removed but cannot be read by third parties. That gap is where GPTTrace’s neural classifier does its work.
What else to look for
Images generated in the consumer Gemini app have carried a small visible sparkle mark in a corner, which people often crop off — a corner that looks oddly trimmed is worth noticing. Nano Banana edits are often realistic portraits of real people placed in new settings, figurine-style renders or restored and colourised old photos. For an edited real photo, the classifier may only partly react, because most of the pixels came from a camera.
Edits versus generations
Much of what people do with Nano Banana is editing rather than generating: changing an outfit, adding a person to a group photo, removing a crowd, restoring an old print. Google records that distinction in metadata — “composite with trained algorithmic media” for edits — and GPTTrace reports it separately, because an edited real photo and a fully invented scene are different kinds of problem. A restored family photograph is not a fake; a real person placed somewhere they never were may be. When the metadata is gone, crop to the part of the picture that matters and check that region on its own.
For anything important, combine a GPTTrace check with Google’s own SynthID verification, and look for the image’s original source.
What Google Imagen / Gemini leaves in a file
These are the traces GPTTrace checks for. “Some files only” means the trace is often missing — a re-save, screenshot or social-media upload removes metadata — so its absence proves nothing.
| Generator | Where | What to look for | How reliable |
|---|---|---|---|
| Google Imagen / Gemini (Nano Banana) | Pixels | SynthID invisible watermark — only Google’s own tools can read it | Documented by the vendor |
| Google Imagen / Gemini (Nano Banana) | IPTC / XMP | DigitalSourceType = trainedAlgorithmicMedia (“Made with Google AI”) | Documented by the vendor |
| Google Imagen / Gemini (Nano Banana) | C2PA manifest | Content Credentials on images from recent Gemini and Pixel versions | Some files only |
| Google Imagen / Gemini (Nano Banana) | Pixels | A small visible sparkle watermark in the corner on free-tier Gemini images | Commonly seen |
How accurate is it? Our measured numbers
We test GPTTrace on labelled image samples and publish the results, including where it does badly. It is tuned to keep false accusations rare, so it misses some AI content rather than flag real work.
image check: AUC 0.938 (cross-validated)
679 labelled samples (399 AI, 280 human), run 2026-10-08. At the “Likely AI” line it caught 64% of AI samples and wrongly flagged 5% of human ones.
| Source | Truth | Samples | Result at “Likely AI” |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemini-nano-banana | AI | 40 | 40% caught |
| fullsize-photos | Human | 40 | 10% wrongly flagged |
| open-images-photos | Human | 40 | 5% wrongly flagged |
| lfw-faces | Human | 40 | 0% wrongly flagged |
| caltech-objects | Human | 40 | 3% wrongly flagged |
| coco-photos | Human | 40 | 0% wrongly flagged |
| ffhq-faces | Human | 40 | 0% wrongly flagged |
| celeba-faces | Human | 40 | 18% wrongly flagged |
Data sources and method: methodology & accuracy.