MAC & Carine Roitfeld: Jungle Camouflage Face Kit

MAC Jungle Camouflage Face Kit ($44.00 for 0.40 oz.) includes four eyeshadows: Dew (soft creamy beige), Camo (muted grayish taupe), Bad Lieutenant (blackened deep brown), and Carbon (intense black) as well as one Cremeblend Blush, Bootcamp Bronze (soft sheer chestnut).

Dew is a light warm beige with a subtle golden shimmer-sheen. It has a veluxe pearl finish. It’s color payoff is decent, but it’s a little dry and noticeably sheer. MAC Sahara Dust is less warm, less golden. Tarina Tarantino Elektron is similar but more metallic. Wet ‘n’ Wild Comfort Zone has a very similar shade.

Camo is medium brown with a barest hint of gray, but it has a noticeably warm undertone despite the inclusion of gray. It has a satin finish. The color payoff was the best out of the four shades–good overall, slightly dry in texture. Burberry Pale Barley is warmer with more of a shimmery finish. theBalm Sultry is very similar, just slightly darker. Bare Escentuals Namaste is grayer and darker. MAC Era is similar but more shimmery.

Bad Lieutenant is a blackened gray with a hint of burgundy. It has a matte finish. The pigmentation is poor, and the texture dry and stiff. On the lid, it was marginally better, but it was not very blendable. Guerlain by Emilio Pucci is more intense, more of a red undertone. Tarina Tarantino Saw Dust is very similar but more pigmented. MAC Dance in the Dark is comparable. MAC Midnight Flurry is marginally lighter. Wet ‘n’ Wild We’re Blasting Off is more cool-toned.

Carbon is a matte black, but if you look in the pan, there are a lot of sparkles–just none of them seem to translate. It was the oddest thing. This shade is part of the permanent range, and it’s actually included in both of the face kits in the collection, and they were about equal in their dry, stiff, poor color payoff-yielding textures. Slightly more pigmented when I used it on the eye (with a 222 brush), but boy, it did not want to move or budge, which made blending a pain in the butt!

Cremeblend Blushes are supposed to be creamy, easy to blend, have medium coverage, and have a natural finish. Bootcamp Bronze is a medium-dark orange-tan with a strong orange undertone. It’s a bit darker than the shade in the other face kit, but when you apply it to the skin, the difference is minute. While the color is buildable, it’s only to a point, and I’m not sure how well it will show up on darker complexions, as it took some layering to get it to show up on me–and when it does, it’s very faint–and I’m medium in color.  The wear with this shade was the same as Sand Storm: six hours of wear, at which point, there was noticeable separation and fading–and it did not care for having my drier cheeks under it at all.

This palette contains 0.22 oz. of eyeshadows (0.055 oz. each, which is 0.005 oz. more than a regular full-sized MAC eyeshadow), which is a $66 value. There is 0.18 oz. of Cremeblend Blush in here, which normally retails for $20.00/0.19 oz., so there is $18.95 value from that, for a total palette value of $84.95. (Note: Cremeblend blushes and eyeshadows are sold in pan form, depending on the shade, but I went with individual product prices, not pan prices. From a pan perspective, there is $52.80 in eyeshadow value and $16.11 in Cremeblend Blush value, for a total value of $68.91.) From a quantity point of view, this is absolutely a deal, which is great news!

Again, as a quick note: the two palettes are very, very similar with the major difference between in finish–this palette is more matte, while Desert Camouflage is more shimmery. I think this one has less quality than Desert Camouflage, because three shades are lacking in color payoff, and the textures across the board were dry, with some being particularly stiff (like Bad Lieutenant and Carbon).  When I wore these eyeshadows together, they wore for six and a half hours over a primer before starting to look faded.  Without a primer, they were more difficult to apply and blend, but they wore about the same length of time.

The Glossover

	Jungle Camouflage D+
	I think this one has less quality than Desert Camouflage, because three shades are lacking in color payoff, and the textures across the board were dry, with some being particularly stiff (like Bad Lieutenant and Carbon).
	Product 7/10 Pigmentation 6.5/10 Texture 7/10 Longevity 7/10 Application 3.5/5
	Where to Buy
Login or Register to be able to add this to your Vanity or Wishlist! Plus rate and review!

See more photos & swatches!

MAC Jungle Camouflage Face Kit

MAC Jungle Camouflage Face Kit

MAC Jungle Camouflage Face Kit

MAC Jungle Camouflage Face Kit

MAC Jungle Camouflage Face Kit

MAC Bootcamp Bronze Cremeblend Blush

MAC Bootcamp Bronze Cremeblend Blush

MAC Bootcamp Bronze Cremeblend Blush

MAC Bootcamp Bronze Cremeblend Blush

MAC Jungle Camouflage Face Kit

MAC Dew Eyeshadow

MAC Camo Eyeshadow

MAC Bad Lieutenant Eyeshadow

MAC Carbon Eyeshadow

MAC Dew Eyeshadow (brow bone, inner tear duct), MAC Camo Eyeshadow (inner lid),
MAC Bad Lieutenant Eyeshadow (outer lid), MAC Carbon Eyeshadow (crease), Tarina Tarantino Puppeteer Eyeliner, and Giorgio Armani Eyes to Kill
Lengthening Mascara.

MAC Dew Eyeshadow (brow bone, inner tear duct), MAC Camo Eyeshadow (inner lid),
MAC Bad Lieutenant Eyeshadow (outer lid), MAC Carbon Eyeshadow (crease), Tarina Tarantino Puppeteer Eyeliner, and Giorgio Armani Eyes to Kill
Lengthening Mascara.

MAC & Carine Roitfeld: Desert Camouflage Face Kit

MAC Desert Camouflage Face Kit ($44.00 for 0.40 oz.) includes four eyeshadows: Sahara Dust (light neutral beige), Cactus Thorn (mid-tone brown bronze), Desert (shimmering warm taupe), and Carbon (intense black) as well as one Cremeblend Blush, Sand Storm (soft sheer warm caramel).

Sahara Dust is a pale beige with a soft, frosted finish. It has a satin finish, officially. The color payoff is decent, and it works well as a highlighter on the brow bone or inner tear duct. Illamasqua Slink is similar, slightly frostier. MAC Brule is more matte. Giorgio Armani Madreperla has a frostier finish. MAC Baby, It’s Cold is a smidgen yellower. MAC Vanilla is a touch lighter.

Cactus Thorn is a softened bronze-shimmered medium-dark brown. It has a frost finish. The pigmentation is good, though the texture was a bit dry. Dior Golden Savannaha is darker, browner. Giorgio Armani #26 is more shimmery. Urban Decay Chase is warmer and more metallic. theBalm Schitzo is very similar, but more pigmented and slightly more golden-toned. Wet ‘n’ Wild Comfort Zone is richer.

Desert is a gray-tinged brown with a hint of plum. It has a satin finish. It has decent color payoff but had a dry, stiffer texture. Bobbi Brown Slate is softer, more matte. MAC Aurora is lighter, more frosted. Dolce &G abbana Jewels is grayer. Inglot #360 is similar but matte.

Carbon is a matte black, but if you look in the pan, there are a lot of sparkles–just none of them seem to translate. It was the oddest thing. I feel like every time I swatch Carbon, it gets worse. And I’m not swatching the same one! This shade is part of the permanent range, and it’s actually included in both of the face kits in the collection, and they were about equal in their dry, stiff, poor color payoff-yielding textures. Slightly more pigmented when I used it on the eye (with a 222 brush), but boy, it did not want to move or budge, which made blending a pain in the butt! Because I happened to also have a really rich black that I was swatching (completely unplanned!) that was insanely pigmented, I took a comparison photo, just so you can see why Carbon is such a disappointment.

Cremeblend Blushes are supposed to be creamy, easy to blend, have medium coverage, and have a natural finish. Sand Storm is a warm, orange-tan with a soft, barely dewy finish (it read mostly matte when it dried down and set). There’s a yellowy-orange undertone that comes through. MAC Lush-Light is darker, browner. MAC Refined Golden is browner. MAC Tan Tint is a smidgen darker. It can be used sheerly with ease, and it can be built up a bit, though I’m not sure it will show up well on darker complexions–it just barely shows on mine (I’m about NC30 at the moment). It may add warmth without adding noticeable color. Yesterday, when I was testing the wear, my cheeks were slightly dry, and this wasn’t forgiving, unfortunately. I was hoping that the creamy consistency would help and was happy that I was testing a cream blush instead of a powder one, LOL! After six hours, it had separated and faded noticeably.

This palette contains 0.22 oz. of eyeshadows (0.055 oz. each, which is 0.005 oz. more than a regular full-sized MAC eyeshadow), which is a $66 value. There is 0.18 oz. of Cremeblend Blush in here, which normally retails for $20.00/0.19 oz., so there is $18.95 value from that, for a total palette value of $84.95. (Note: Cremeblend blushes and eyeshadows are sold in pan form, depending on the shade, but I went with individual product prices, not pan prices. From a pan perspective, there is $52.80 in eyeshadow value and $16.11 in Cremeblend Blush value, for a total value of $68.91.) From a quantity point of view, this is absolutely a deal, which is great news!

It’s a decent palette, but the inclusion of Carbon is really bringing down the overall quality of it on the whole.  The other three eyeshadows have decent color payoff, with Sahara Dust being the easiest to work with.  Sand Storm didn’t have fantastic wear, but it was blendable and looked good initially.  These eyeshadows were less stellar without a primer–they were less blendable and faded after six hours. Over a primer, I saw some minor fading of Desert and Carbon.  

It’s hard to recommend or feel good about a palette when one shade is such a dud and four shades are decent but not really phenomenal. I keep hoping for a stellar launch from MAC, but they aren’t making it easy at all.

I’ll have my review for the Jungle Camouflage palette up soon, but as a quick note: the two palettes are very, very similar with the major difference between in finish–this palette is more shimmery, while Jungle Camouflage is more matte.

The Glossover

	Desert Camouflage B-
	It's a decent palette, but the inclusion of Carbon is really bringing down the overall quality of it on the whole. The other three eyeshadows have decent color payoff, with Sahara Dust being the easiest to work with. Sand Storm didn't have fantastic wear, but it was blendable and looked good initially. It's hard to recommend or feel good about a palette when one shade is such a dud and four shades are decent but not really phenomenal.
	Product 8/10 Pigmentation 8.5/10 Texture 8/10 Longevity 8/10 Application 4/5
	Where to Buy
Login or Register to be able to add this to your Vanity or Wishlist! Plus rate and review!

See more photos & swatches!

MAC Desert Camouflage Face Kit

MAC Desert Camouflage Face Kit

MAC Desert Camouflage Face Kit

MAC Desert Camouflage Face Kit

MAC Sand Storm Cremeblend Blush

MAC Sand Storm Cremeblend Blush

MAC Sand Storm Cremeblend Blush

MAC Sand Storm Cremeblend Blush

MAC Desert Camouflage Face Kit

MAC Desert Camouflage Face Kit

MAC Desert Camouflage Face Kit

MAC Sahara Dust Eyeshadow

MAC Cactus Thorn Eyeshadow

MAC Desert Eyeshadow

MAC Carbon Eyeshadow (this is *layered*)

Le Metier de Beaute Fin Eyeshadow vs. MAC Carbon Eyeshadow (One pass)

MAC Sahara Dust Eyeshadow (brow bone), MAC Cactus Thorn Eyeshadow (inner lid),
MAC Desert Eyeshadow (outer lid), MAC Carbon Eyeshadow (crease),
Tarina Tarantino Puppeteer Eyeliner, and Giorgio Armani Eyes to Kill
Lengthening Mascara

MAC Sahara Dust Eyeshadow (brow bone), MAC Cactus Thorn Eyeshadow (inner lid),
MAC Desert Eyeshadow (outer lid), MAC Carbon Eyeshadow (crease),
Tarina Tarantino Puppeteer Eyeliner, and Giorgio Armani Eyes to Kill
Lengthening Mascara

MAC & Carine Roitfeld: Undercover Nude Nail Lacquer

MAC Undercover Nude Nail Lacquer ($17.50 for 0.34 fl. oz.) is described as a “sheer clear nude.” It’s a sheer light beige with a cream finish. Why does MAC describe this one as “sheer” and “clear” but that nearly colorless lipstick as “sheer” and “translucent.” The descriptions would be better if switched – as this polish is definitely not clear (sheer, yes!). Chanel Beige Petale is similar. MAC Sandpiper is darker, more opaque. Essie Kisses & Bisses is iridescent.

Unfortunately, this was a pale cream that was definitely streaky to work with. It wouldn’t self-level for me, and I attempted three different applications to get it to be even, but I didn’t have any luck. It levels out just slightly but not enough to be even and smooth. I think this is a color that works for a sheer shade, and it’s very work-friendly. It gave my nails a brighter, cleaner look–but it was streaky. The formula was slightly thick, but two coats didn’t feel too heavy. I typically get a week of wear with minor tip wear but no chipping with MAC’s polish formula.

The Glossover

LE	Undercover Nude C+
	This one was really streaky to work with, which resulted in a less polished look. I think the color would work well across skin tones, so it's a bummer that the formula didn't work better.
	Product 7/10 Pigmentation 8/10 Texture 8.5/10 Longevity 9/10 Application 3/5
	Where to Buy
Login or Register to be able to add this to your Vanity or Wishlist! Plus rate and review!

See more photos & swatches!

MAC Undercover Nude Nail Lacquer

MAC Undercover Nude Nail Lacquer

MAC Undercover Nude Nail Lacquer

MAC Undercover Nude Nail Lacquer

MAC Undercover Nude Nail Lacquer

MAC Undercover Nude Nail Lacquer

MAC & Carine Roitfeld: Underfire Red Nail Lacquer

MAC Underfire Red Nail Lacquer ($17.50 for 0.34 fl. oz.) is described as a “deep blood red.” It’s a dark, brown-based red with a cream finish. Deborah Lippmann Single Ladies is much darker. China Glaze Velvet Bow is several shades darker. Essie Size Matters is lighter, less brown. China Glaze City Siren has less brown. MAC Sly as a Fox is browner. Chanel Rouge Fatal is a smidgen browner. Essie Limited Addiction is very comparable.

It is mostly opaque after two coats, but there’s a small level of translucency–almost because it doesn’t look quite even.  The consistency was thin but not watery; each coat seemed to deliver a fair amount of color payoff, but there was some streakiness that impaired the overall result.  I don’t have problems with the wear of MAC’s polish formula (I get a week with minor tip wear but no chipping), but a lot of the shades don’t have stellar formulas.

P.S. — I didn’t think MAC polish could get more expensive this year, but I was wrong.

The Glossover

LE	Underfire B+
	Not bad, not great--of course, at this price point, it really needs to be a top notch polish. The color is dupeable enough that there doesn't seem to be much reason to settle for an under-performing high-end shade.
	Product 8.5/10 Pigmentation 9/10 Texture 9/10 Longevity 9/10 Application 3.5/5
	Where to Buy
Login or Register to be able to add this to your Vanity or Wishlist! Plus rate and review!

See more photos & swatches!

MAC Underfire Red Nail Lacquer

MAC Underfire Red Nail Lacquer

MAC Underfire Red Nail Lacquer

MAC Underfire Red Nail Lacquer

MAC Underfire Red Nail Lacquer

MAC Underfire Red Nail Lacquer

MAC & Carine Roitfeld: Tropical Mist Lipstick

MAC Tropical Mist Lipstick ($16.50 for 0.10 oz.) is described as a “sheer translucent nude.” (I will also note that MAC’s website only describes it as “nude,” which is more misleading than the press release’s description.) It’s a wash of warm beige with a soft, frosted finish. It has a lustre finish. For all intents and purposes, it looks like I put lip balm on, because it looks completely colorless on my lips. As far as dupes go, any lip balm that has more of a sheen than a glossy shine would substitute.

It was hard to judge how long this worn on me, truly, because the only thing I could see visually was that lustre-like finish, kind of frosted but barely. Instead, I took a napkin and pressed my lips against this after two hours (at which point, it seemed like it was gone), and there was nothing on the napkin.  I repeated this experiment twice more – the second time, after an hour and the third time, after three hours. There was a little bit of product visible on the napkin after an hour, and again, none after three hours. The fact that color is coming off shows that it’s not 100% clear or invisible, but because your lips are not invisible or clear, they tend to “absorb” the color so it’s less noticeable on. I’m not a big fan of lustre finishes, as I tend to find them drying, and Tropical Mist was no exception, as it was somewhat drying after wearing it for six hours (back to back).

It’s sheer. It’s translucent. It’s pretty much exactly as described by MAC, except it’s nearly invisible. Sheer doesn’t mean clear, right? Translucent is the adjective more likely to suggest clear, though after reading about ten definitions across various dictionaries online, it suggests something that allows light to pass through but in a slightly diffused manner (e.g. frosted glass).  On that note, I’m going to go with this needs a wee bit more color to give it a more diffused quality but only take off one point.  Since it’s somewhat drying, it’s not something I can recommend, and I think some will be hard-pressed to shell out $16.50 for something that’s going to look virtually colorless and not hydrating. I imagine some will expect a lower grade, but remember: MAC said this was sheer and translucent, so that’s the starting point for discussion.

The Glossover

LE	Tropical Mist B-
	Since it's drying, it's not something I can recommend, and I think some will be hard-pressed to shell out $16.50 for something that's going to be colorless and not hydrating.
	Product 7.5/10 Pigmentation 9/10 Texture 9/10 Longevity 6/10 Application 4.5/5
	Where to Buy
Login or Register to be able to add this to your Vanity or Wishlist! Plus rate and review!

See more photos & swatches!

MAC Tropical Mist Lipstick

MAC Tropical Mist Lipstick

MAC Tropical Mist Lipstick

MAC Tropical Mist Lipstick

MAC Tropical Mist Lipstick

MAC Tropical Mist Lipstick