Cindy Zhu.
← all free guides
Content creation Multi-tool

UGC that doesn't look AI

Hey, it's Cindy ๐ŸŒฑ You commented REAL, so here are the exact prompts. The whole thing rests on one inversion: you never ask for realistic. Ask for realistic and you get smooth, even, flawless, which is precisely what the eye reads as AI. You ask for the flaws instead. Everything below runs in Arcads. ๐Ÿ‘ฉโ€๐Ÿ’ป
Why "realistic" backfires. Real footage is full of small failures. Skin has pores and oil. Light blows out when someone turns toward a window. Autofocus hunts for a moment before it settles. None of that is flattering, and all of it is what your brain uses to decide something was filmed. When you ask a model for realistic, it optimises toward beautiful, which strips exactly those signals out. So you have to put them back deliberately.

step one

Five references, not one ๐Ÿ“Œ

Start on Pinterest. Save the aesthetic you actually want, Y2K, old money, harajuku, clean girl, whatever it is, and take five references across to Arcads.

Five rather than one for a specific reason: AI softens an aesthetic every time it copies it. One reference gets interpreted, and the interpretation drifts toward generic. Five references from the same world hold the line, because the model has to satisfy all of them at once. You are not giving it a picture to copy, you are fencing in a style.

๐ŸŒฑ Pick references that agree with each other. Five images from the same world lock a look. Five images from five different worlds average into mush, which is worse than using one. Same lighting, same era, same colour temperature.

step two

The still, with the flaws written in ๐Ÿงด

Generate at low resolution first and only upscale the one you like, so you are not paying full price to test.

๐Ÿงด the still prompt
A candid photo of [describe your person: age, hair, what they are wearing], [what they are doing], shot on a phone front camera in [describe the room and the light source].

Skin must look like real skin at close range: visible pores across the cheeks and nose, a little oil on the nose and forehead, faint redness under the eyes and around the nostrils, uneven natural tone, fine flyaway hairs at the hairline. Do not smooth, retouch or even out the skin.

Lighting is available light only, from [the window / the ceiling light], slightly uneven across the face, with a mild colour cast from the room. Not studio lighting, not a ring light, no fill.

The expression is mid-sentence and slightly asymmetric rather than posed or smiling at the camera. Framing is casual and a little off-centre, as if nobody composed it.

Match the style, grade and grain of the attached references.
โš ๏ธ Do not write "realistic", "hyper-realistic", "photorealistic", "flawless skin", "perfect lighting" or "beautiful". Every one of those pushes the model toward the plastic look you are trying to escape. If your output looks like an advert, one of these words is in your prompt.

step three

The still becomes video ๐ŸŽฅ

This is where most people lose it. A perfect still turns into obviously-generated video the moment the motion is too smooth, so the flaws you write in here are camera flaws rather than skin flaws.

๐ŸŽฅ the video prompt
Animate this as a handheld phone video, roughly [8] seconds.

The camera is held in one hand: small constant drift and micro-shake, never a smooth glide, never a tripod. Once during the clip the autofocus hunts briefly before settling. When the subject turns toward the window, the exposure shifts and takes a moment to rebalance, blowing out slightly on that side.

The subject moves like a person mid-thought: small weight shifts, a blink that is not on a beat, one natural imperfect gesture. She does not perform to camera.

Keep the skin texture from the source image exactly as it is. Do not smooth, brighten or retouch anything as it moves.

No music, no transitions, no colour grading pass. It should look like an unedited clip straight off a phone.

The flaw library ๐Ÿ”ง

Add any of these to either prompt. Reach for two or three, not all of them, because piling on every flaw at once reads as a filter rather than as reality.

๐Ÿ”ง flaws that read as real
SKIN AND FACE
visible pores across the cheeks and nose
oil on the nose and forehead catching the light
faint redness under the eyes and around the nostrils
a few fine flyaway hairs at the hairline
slightly chapped lips
uneven undertone, one cheek warmer than the other
an asymmetric expression caught mid-sentence

CAMERA
autofocus hunting once before it settles
exposure shifting when the subject turns toward the light
a slight fingerprint smudge softening one corner of the frame
mild rolling-shutter wobble on a quick movement
handheld micro-shake, never a smooth glide
framing slightly off-centre, as if nobody composed it

ROOM AND LIGHT
one practical light source with a colour cast
a slightly cluttered background that nobody tidied
mixed lighting, warm lamp against cool daylight
a shadow falling unevenly across the face

The honest bit โœ…

Two or three flaws, not twelve
Real footage has a few imperfections, not all of them at once. Stack every line from the library and you get a different kind of obviously-generated: over-textured, grimy, uncanny in the opposite direction.
Motion gives it away before skin does
If a viewer clocks it as AI, it is usually the movement, not the face. Spend your prompt budget on the camera behaving like a hand holding a phone.
Low res first, always
You will generate a lot of near-misses. Judging them at low resolution and upscaling one is the difference between an affordable session and a wasted one.
Disclose when it matters
This is for making your own content look human, not for passing generated people off as real testimonials. If it reads as a customer review, say it is AI. That is the line worth keeping.

The links ๐Ÿ”—

๐ŸŽฌ Arcads: arcads.ai

Follow @cindiezhu for more AI you can actually use ๐ŸŒฑ