Thursday, August 30th, 2012

MAC Jungle Camouflage Face Kit
MAC Jungle Camouflage Face Kit

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

palette

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

Results
Loading ... Loading ...
Login or Register to be able to add this to your Vanity or Wishlist! Plus rate and review!

See more photos & swatches! Continue reading →

Thursday, August 30th, 2012

MAC Desert Camouflage Face Kit
MAC Desert Camouflage Face Kit

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

palette

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

Results
Loading ... Loading ...
Login or Register to be able to add this to your Vanity or Wishlist! Plus rate and review!

See more photos & swatches! Continue reading →

Friday, February 3rd, 2012

MAC Restores Dazzle! Cremeblend Blush
MAC Restores Dazzle! Cremeblend Blush

MAC Shop MAC, Cook MAC: Restores Dazzle! Cremeblend Blush

MAC Restores Dazzle! Cremeblend Blush ($20.00 for 0.19 oz.) is described as a “rich plum.” It’s a gorgeous darkened raspberry with a subtle cool undertone and natural sheen. Bobbi Brown Plum is somewhat similar but pinker and lighter. MAC Vintage Grape is darker, less pink.

Whether you want a really dramatic, intense cheek color or a softer, subtler hue of pink-berry, you can easily achieve both here. The product is incredibly pigmented, so a little will go a long way–use a stippling brush and/or a light hand when applying if you desire sheer to medium color coverage. I applied with light-medium application in mind so it would be easily seen in photos.

Cremeblend Blush has an interesting texture that’s creamy but slick; it’s not thick like a traditional cream blush; it almost feels like a gel or cheek stain in feel, but it applies and looks like a cream blush.  I wasn’t able to test the wear of this specific shade for wear, but I’ve tested five or six of the various shades in this formula, and I typically average seven hours of wear.

The Glossover

LE
product

Restores Dazzle

B+
I like the lightweight texture of Cremeblend Blushes, and the natural slip they have makes these very easy to spread across the skin. It dries down to a soft sheen, so it doesn't look oily or dewy once applied.

Product

9/10

Pigmentation

10/10

Texture

9/10

Longevity

8/10

Application

4/5

Results
Loading ... Loading ...
Dupes
Login or Register to be able to add this to your Vanity or Wishlist! Plus rate and review!

See more photos & swatches! Continue reading →

Friday, February 3rd, 2012

MAC Optimistic Orange Cremeblend Blush
MAC Optimistic Orange Cremeblend Blush

MAC Shop MAC, Cook MAC: Optimistic Orange Cremeblend Blush

MAC Optimistic Orange Cremeblend Blush ($20.00 for 0.19 oz.) is described as a “bright orange.” It’s a medium-dark orange with a natural sheen. It looks lighter in the pan, but after you swipe the first layer off, it looks a bit darker (truer to the swatch). Make Up For Ever #12 is similar but a little more tangerine. Make Up For Ever #5 is redder and darker.

This shade has plenty of color payoff, so you do not need much product to get a pop of color on the cheeks. I find it’s easier to build up the color than it is to blend it out. It’s blendable, but it’s only so blendable. I recommend using a stippling brush or a light hand when applying. I went with a medium application of color so you could see it in photos and get a better grasp of what the color looks like on skin, but it can be more both more intensely as well as more subtly.

Cremeblend Blush has an interesting texture that’s creamy but slick; it’s not thick like a traditional cream blush; it almost feels like a gel or cheek stain in feel, but it applies and looks like a cream blush. Like Florida, I also re-tested the wear of Optimistic Orange earlier this week (since it’s a repromote), and it wore for seven hours before it began to fade.

The Glossover

LE
product

Optimistic Orange

B+
I like the lightweight texture of Cremeblend Blushes, and the natural slip they have makes these very easy to spread across the skin. It dries down to a soft sheen, so it doesn't look oily or dewy once applied.

Product

9/10

Pigmentation

10/10

Texture

9/10

Longevity

8/10

Application

4/5

Results
Loading ... Loading ...
Dupes
Login or Register to be able to add this to your Vanity or Wishlist! Plus rate and review!

See more photos & swatches! Continue reading →

Friday, February 3rd, 2012

MAC Florida Cremeblend Blush
MAC Florida Cremeblend Blush

MAC Florida Cremeblend Blush

MAC Florida Cremeblend Blush ($20.00 for 0.19 oz.) is described as a “bright coral” on the press release, but between you and me, that’s completely wrong. When it was originally launched in MAC in Lillyland, it was described as a “bright fuchsia,” which is so much more accurate. It is a brightened, light-medium fuchsia pink with strong blue undertones. MAC Overdyed is similar but slightly darker. MAC Amazon Princess is also very similar, perhaps a touch less pink. MAC Her Blooming Cheek has a bit more of a sheen but the color comes close.

Unlike the permanent range of Cremeblend Blushes, this is a much more intense color, so while those neutral shades were easy to use and impossible to overdo, I recommend a light hand and/or a stippling brush with this shade! It’s intensely pigmented, so a little goes a long way–use less than you think you’d need. It’s easier to build up the color than it is to tamp down the intensity once it’s applied.

Cremeblend Blush has an interesting texture that’s creamy but slick; it’s not thick like a traditional cream blush; it almost feels like a gel or cheek stain in feel, but it applies and looks like a cream blush. Once applied, it has a natural sheen but no shimmer. I re-tested the wear of Florida earlier this week, and it wore for seven hours before it began to fade.

The Glossover

LE
product

Florida

B+
I like the lightweight texture of Cremeblend Blushes, and the natural slip they have makes these very easy to spread across the skin. It dries down to a soft sheen, so it doesn't look oily or dewy once applied.

Product

9/10

Pigmentation

10/10

Texture

9/10

Longevity

8/10

Application

4/5

Results
Loading ... Loading ...
Dupes
Login or Register to be able to add this to your Vanity or Wishlist! Plus rate and review!

See more photos & swatches! Continue reading →

Monday, February 28th, 2011

Video Review: MAC Cremeblend Blush

This pretty much rounds off our MAC posts–for a few weeks at least–I hope, ha!