Summary:
Image editing in Cursor appears to have regressed significantly. The tool frequently regenerates new images instead of modifying the original, while also producing repeated “request failed with status code 400” errors. Additionally, content filtering behaviour is inconsistent and contradictory.
Expected Behaviour:
Image edits should preserve original composition, pose, and structure
The model should apply only the requested changes
Requests should complete without frequent 400 errors under normal usage
Content rules should be applied consistently to both prompts and outputs
Actual Behaviour:
The model often generates a completely new image instead of modifying the original
Composition and structure are not preserved
Repeated “request failed with status code 400” errors interrupt workflows
Content filtering appears inconsistent:
Prompts are sometimes rejected or altered due to restrictions (e.g. referencing firearms)
However, the model will still include similar elements in its own generated output
Steps to Reproduce:
Upload an existing image
Request a simple edit (e.g. clothing change, colour adjustment, or adding small elements)
Observe that:
A new image is generated instead of an edit
OR a 400 error occurs
OR the output includes elements that were restricted in the prompt
Additional Notes:
This behaviour differs from previous usage where edits were more reliable and composition was preserved
Reattaching the image and simplifying prompts does not consistently resolve the issue
The issue affects both simple and more detailed edit requests
Impact:
Breaks iterative workflows (e.g. concept art refinement)
Causes loss of control over outputs
Requires repeated retries due to errors
Reduces trust in the tool due to inconsistent rule enforcement
Request:
Restore reliable image-to-image editing behaviour
Fix repeated 400 error occurrences during normal usage
Ensure consistent application of content rules between prompt handling and generated output
Improve adherence to explicit edit constraints (e.g. “preserve composition, modify only X”)
For AI issues: which model did you use?
Model name (e.g., Sonnet 4, Tab…)
For AI issues: add Request ID with privacy disabled
Request ID: f9a7046a-279b-47e5-ab48-6e8dc12daba1
For Background Agent issues, also post the ID: bc-…
Additional Information
Add any other context about the problem here.
Does this stop you from using Cursor?
Yes - Cursor is unusable
Sometimes - I can sometimes use Cursor
No - Cursor works, but with this issue
The more details you provide, the easier it is for us to reproduce and fix the issue. Thanks!
Image editing/generation appears to ignore the source image composition and repeatedly fails with status code 400 before eventually generating an unrelated replacement image.
The system previously handled image-to-image edits much more accurately, preserving composition and only modifying requested areas. Recent behaviour appears significantly more restrictive or unstable.
Steps to Reproduce
Upload a base image.
Upload a secondary reference image.
Ask Cursor to preserve the original art style and composition while adding creatures/elements from the second image into the environment.
Generate the image.
Prompt used:
“Using the first image following the same art style guide can you add alien creatures referenced in the second image to the surrounding jungle environment in the first image hiding in cover with subtle hints to their presence? Maintain the first image created with the characters intact, only add additional creatures to the surrounding environment.”
Expected Behavior
The original image composition and characters should remain intact while only adding subtle environmental creatures/elements inspired by the second image.
The system should perform a controlled image edit rather than generating an entirely new composition.
Actual Behaviour
The generation repeatedly failed with:
“Request failed with status code 400”
After multiple failures, Cursor generated an entirely different image with:
different composition
different character placement
different art structure
poor preservation of the original uploaded image and art style
It appears the system fell back to full image regeneration instead of image editing.
Operating System
MacOS
Version Information
3.2.16
For AI issues: which model did you use?
Gemini 3.1 Pro
The same issue also occurs with other models.
Request ID
f9a7046a-279b-47e5-ab48-6e8dc12daba1
Additional Information
This behaviour appears significantly worse than previous Cursor image-generation behaviour from earlier versions/builds. Earlier versions preserved uploaded image structure much more reliably.
The issue seems particularly noticeable when:
using two image references
requesting subtle edits only
asking to preserve composition/layout
attempting environment-only modifications
The system often appears to abandon the original image edit request and instead generates an entirely new image loosely based on keywords from the prompt.
At present this issue is severe enough that it is pushing me toward using alternative AI image-generation systems instead of Cursor for this workflow.