Bad, Good, Great

The same goal written three ways. The fastest way to see what actually separates an amateur prompt from a production one.

Three versions of the same request, and what changes between them. The delta is the lesson — not the final prompt.

class="sp">

The fastest way to learn prompting is to see the delta between a bad prompt and a great one. Same goal — completely different outputs. These examples show exactly what separates amateur results from commercial-grade work.

❌ BAD PROMPT

a pretty woman in a cafe

Why it fails: No subject detail. No lighting. No camera. No style. No mood. The model has to guess everything — and it will guess wrong. You get a generic, flat, stock-photo-looking image with plastic skin and dead eyes.

⚡ GOOD PROMPT

photorealistic portrait of a woman in her late 20s sitting in a cafe, natural lighting, editorial style, 8K

Better, but missing: No specific lighting type. No camera or lens. No clothing detail. No mood or publication reference. Results are inconsistent — sometimes good, sometimes stock-photo. No control over output.

✅ GREAT PROMPT

RAW photo, 1woman late 20s, ivory blazer, golden hour backlight, Canon EOS R5 85mm f/1.2, serene and confident, Vogue Japan editorial, 8K, photorealistic

Why it works: Subject defined precisely. Lighting named specifically. Camera + lens = photorealism signal. Mood and publication reference lock the aesthetic. Quality tags front-loaded. Consistent professional output every single time.

❌ BAD VIDEO PROMPT

a woman walking in Tokyo at night

Result: Face morphs between frames. Camera jumps randomly. Scene cuts appear. Temporal consistency breaks completely. Character looks different in every frame. Unusable for content.

⚡ GOOD VIDEO PROMPT

1woman walks slowly through Tokyo at night, neon lights, tracking camera shot, same face throughout, no scene cuts, 8 seconds

Almost there: Has identity lock and duration. Missing bracket format, director reference, and specific lighting. Results are good but inconsistent — some runs are great, some are mediocre.

✅ GREAT VIDEO PROMPT

[MOTION]: slow walk [SUBJECT]: 1woman, white dress, same face, no morphing [ENV]: Tokyo alley, midnight, neon [CAMERA]: tracking dolly, 35mm anamorphic [STYLE]: Roger Deakins, 24fps [DURATION]: 8s, no cuts

Why it works: Bracket format gives the model clear structure. Motion first — the cardinal rule. Identity locked. Camera movement specified. Director reference sets visual language. Consistent cinematic output every run.

❌ BAD LLM PROMPT

write a product description for my perfume

Result: Generic, corporate-sounding copy. Wrong tone for the brand. Wrong length. Filled with clichés like "indulge your senses" and "for the discerning individual." No brand voice, no target audience considered.

⚡ GOOD LLM PROMPT

Write a luxury product description for a perfume called Noir. Target audience: affluent women 35-50. Keep it under 100 words. Sophisticated tone.

Better: Has audience, length, and tone direction. Missing: brand voice reference, style examples, format rules, explicit exclusions. Results are usable but not consistently on-brand.

✅ GREAT LLM PROMPT

You are a senior copywriter for a luxury fragrance brand writing for affluent women 35-50. Write a 80-word product description for Noir. Tone: Aesop meets Diptyque — minimal, intelligent, poetic. No exclamations. No clichés. Lead with sensation, not ingredients.

Why it works: Role defined. Context given. Word count specified. Brand voice references provided. Explicit exclusions stated. Lead direction given. The output is immediately usable — the model has no room to guess.