MAC Fleur Real High-Light Powder Review & Swatches

01/10

MAC Fleur Real High-Light Powder
MAC Fleur Real High-Light Powder
MAC Fleur Real High-Light Powder
MAC Fleur Real High-Light Powder
MAC Fleur Real High-Light Powder
MAC Fleur Real High-Light Powder
MAC Fleur Real High-Light Powder
MAC Fleur Real High-Light Powder
MAC Fleur Real High-Light Powder
MAC Fleur Real High-Light Powder
MAC Fleur Real High-Light Powder
MAC Fleur Real High-Light Powder
MAC Fleur Real High-Light Powder
MAC Fleur Real High-Light Powder
MAC Fleur Real High-Light Powder
MAC Fleur Real High-Light Powder
MAC Fleur Real High-Light Powder
MAC Fleur Real High-Light Powder
MAC Fleur Real High-Light Powder
MAC Fleur Real High-Light Powder
MAC Fleur Real High-Light Powder
MAC Fleur Real High-Light Powder
MAC Fleur Real High-Light Powder
MAC Fleur Real High-Light Powder
MAC Fleur Real High-Light Powder
MAC Fleur Real High-Light Powder
MAC Fleur Real High-Light Powder
MAC Fleur Real High-Light Powder
MAC Fleur Real High-Light Powder
MAC Fleur Real High-Light Powder

Fleur Real

MAC Fleur Real High-Light Powder ($30.00 for 0.31 oz.) is a pale pink with subtle, warm undertones and a matte finish. It had medium coverage, which was buildable to semi-opaque coverage if you have the skin tone it’ll show up on. At best, this particular shade could be used as a brightening powder for select skin tones (though it’s quite pigmented) or a very subtle blush on very fair skin tones but doesn’t do much to highlight. It had an incredibly velvety, finely-milled texture that was dense, lightly creamy, and blendable, though. As a barely-there blush on my skin tone, it lasted for eight hours on me and was very smoothing of skin texture/pores.

It’s supposed to have a “sheer veil of colour” that “blends effortlessly,” but it is still labeled as a “highlighter.” Most, if not at all (depending on the shade, of the shimmer is an overspray (as is the gradient effect), and this is in line with this formula — MAC’s “High-Light Powder” has typically been over-designed with a more underwhelming product underneath. It’s one of the most confusing formulas MAC has in their arsenal, because it really doesn’t jive with the expectations they set with the overspray nor the product’s name. It’s too bad they didn’t pull out their Blush Ombre formula from years past.

It’s just not at all what anyone would expect with a formula name of “High-Light Powder” nor with how it appears in the pan (upon purchase). Most of the iterations I’ve come across are more blush-like in color with semi-matte to matte finishes that really mattify the skin rather than bring in any luminosity. The colors have ranged from pale pink to brown to coral. Even Marine Life was nowhere near a highlighter, which I recall being one of the more covetable MAC products of years gone by.

Formula Overview

$35.50/0.35 oz. - $101.43 Per Ounce

It's supposed to have a "sheer veil of colour" that "blends effortlessly," but it is still labeled as a "highlighter." Most, if not at all (depending on the shade, of the shimmer is an overspray (as is the gradient effect), and this is in line with this formula -- MAC's "High-Light Powder" has typically been over-designed with a more underwhelming product underneath. It's one of the most confusing formulas MAC has in their arsenal, because it really doesn't jive with the expectations they set with the overspray nor the product's name. It's too bad they didn't pull out their Blush Ombre formula from years past.

It's just not at all what anyone would expect with a formula name of "High-Light Powder" nor with how it appears in the pan (upon purchase). Most of the iterations I've come across are more blush-like in color with semi-matte to matte finishes that really mattify the skin rather than bring in any luminosity. The colors have ranged from pale pink to brown to coral. Even Marine Life was nowhere near a highlighter, which I recall being one of the more covetable MAC products of years gone by.

Browse all of our MAC High-Light Powder swatches.

Ingredients

Talc , Zea Mays (Corn) Starch , Dimethicone , Octyldodecyl Stearoyl Stearate , Zinc Stearate , Pentaerythrityl Tetraisostearate , Rosa Canina (Rose Hips) Fruit Extract , Ginkgo Biloba Leaf Extract , Acrylates/Octylacrylamide Copolymer , Isostearyl Alcohol , Zea Mays (Corn) Oil , Tetrasodium Edta , Potassium Sorbate , Chlorphenesin , [+/- Mica , Titanium Dioxide (Ci 77891) , Iron Oxides (Ci 77491, Ci 77492, Ci 77499) , Bismuth Oxychloride (Ci 77163) , Chromium Oxide Greens (Ci 77288) , Ferric Ferrocyanide (Ci 77510) , Red 6 (Ci 15850) , Red 7 Lake (Ci 15850) , Red 30 Lake (Ci 73360) , Red 33 (Ci 17200) , Ultramarines (Ci 77007) , Yellow 5 Lake (Ci 19140)]

We hope you'll consider supporting Temptalia by shopping through our links below. Thanks!

Where to Buy

Current Sales & Deals

  • MAC CosmeticsJoin MAC Lover for 15% off your first purchase & exclusive members-only benefits here, ends 12/31.
  • NordstromCurrent gifts with purchases viewable here, ends 12/31.
  • SaksSign up (here) for Saks emails and get 10% off your first order, ends 12/31. Free shipping with code FREESHIP, ends 12/31.
  • UltaGorgeous Hair Event on now, 50% off daily beauty steals (view here), ends 10/26.
When you purchase through our links above, you help support Temptalia. Thank You!
We hope you'll consider supporting Temptalia by shopping through our links below. Thanks!

About the Reviewer

Reviewer

Christine has normal-to-dry skin with areas of dryness (cheeks, nose, and under the eyes). She has a light-medium skintone with subtle, warmer yellow undertones. Her best foundation matches include: Tarte Rainforest of the Sea in Light-Medium Neutral (best match), Estee Lauder Double Wear Stay-in-Place Makeup in Desert Beige 2N1, Giorgio Armani Maestro Glow in 4.0, Hourglass Warm Ivory Vanish Seamless Finish, Laura Mercier Candleglow Soft Luminous in Dusk, MAC NC20/NC25, Make Up For Ever Ultra HD Liquid in Y305 (140). For more matches, please read our full Foundation FAQ. For more information on our review process, please read our Review FAQ.

Compare Any Two Swatches

Curious how two shades compare to each other? Type in the shades below to get instant side-by-side swatches!

We hope you'll consider supporting Temptalia by shopping through our links below. Thanks!

29 Comments

Comments that do not adhere to our comment policy may be removed. Discussion and debate are highly encouraged but we expect community members to participate respectfully. Please keep discussion on-topic, and if you have general feedback, a product review request, an off-topic question, or need technical support, please contact us!

Please help us streamline the comments' section and be more efficient: double-check the post above for more basic information like pricing, availability, and so on to make sure your question wasn't answered already. Comments alerting us to typos or small errors in the post are appreciated (!) but will typically be removed after errors are fixed (unless a response is needed).

We appreciate enthusiasm for new releases but ask readers to please hold questions regarding if/when a review will be posted as we can't commit to or guarantee product reviews. We don't want to set expectations and then disappoint readers as even products that are swatched don't always end up being reviewed due to time constraints and changes in priorities! Thank you for understanding!

Comments on this post are closed.
We hope you'll consider supporting Temptalia by shopping through our links below. Thanks!

The High-Light powders have a pretty strong overspray and it’s been like that for nearly a decade (possibly longer) – it has and remains a very strange product.

I scrolled past the review to
Look at your photos and was like “where’s the highlight?” Well this is an easy pass for me! It’s a shame because the packaging is so pretty.

With an overspray like that it’s almost straight up false advertising. 🙁 I am sure there are people who have bought the product thinking it is like how it looks. This is just so confusing why they would make a product type like that (and keep releasing more over time)!

My thoughts exactly, but I’ll be damned if I am not thinking of getting it if it comes to my country 🙁 i prefer a barely there blush, and this, if it showed up a tiny bit, would be impossible to get wrong.

I’d still prefer if it wasn’t an overspray, though.

I think that–just because something scores a particular way–the point is really just to set expectations, so if you’re cool with it being matte and very light, that’s great. I can appreciate why this might end up working for someone and also why so many are disappointed with it!

Totally! If it had been what it looked like, I probably have a 1000 dupes and it’s too dark. After reading your review I knew I would love it and I totally do! I want a back-up of this, but somehow I’m getting the impression this will end up on clearance, lol.

Talk about a misleading/false product. Anyone buying it for the shimmer suggested by the overspray or for the gradient effect and who hasn’t seen your review, Christine, will be sorely disappointed. With the wonderful MSFs and In Extra Dimension highlighters MAC makes, I can’t understand why they felt they had to release something like THIS that is so sub-standard.

Hi Mariella, the collection was released a few weeks ago in the UK and pretty quickly, pictures of the overspray, even how thin it was, made the rounds on IG. Hopefully between Christine and those IG photos, people are foreworned. Very misleading by MAC.

I think they anticipate these artistic pans to be “too pretty to use” thus why bother with a usable formula underneath? That packaging and pan relief is GORGEOUS, I’d have a hard time messing with it.

I heard a rumor that that’s what is going on. MAC is supposedly giving instructions the associates to push this as a collector’s item.

Having already watched the Beauty News girls expose the whole overspray issue on late Saturday or Sunday night, I knew this would flop. Sure enough, it did. What was MAC thinking, though? Did they not know that this would be quickly discovered and thus revealed to all? Or, were they marketing it to those who only wish to own it to gaze upon its outward beauty, but painful teasing of what it could have been? 🤔
I call it an expensive CHARADE.

I could barely see the swatch, it was so feint. Another ordinary product from MAC. They are not having a good day at all. And the overspray effect is really poor too.

Somehow, I never think ‘matte’ and HL in the same sentence. I did a look-back at Marine Life, and there, the overspray makes sense. ‘Course, I would never have touched it! Wow, that was art. Just for kicks, going to try old mufe yoghurt, that is my major browbone shade, as HL. Bet it looks terrible, lol. I see CCO in the future for this one.

This is totally disappointing. The packaging is so lovely but it’s not the packaging that gets worn and used.
I was looking forward to this line but it’s quite a let down. I’m certainly not going to buy this just for the packaging.

This product, likely the most desired piece of the collection, is a big disappointment. The gradient shade was what made the colour story interesting to me. That it’s a thin overspray, leaving more of the pale pink underneath makes it a complete pass for me.

I giggled hard over the fact that Christine had to include a second picture – a much closer look of the product applied over her cheeks and yet we still see nuthin’.

The ladies of Beauty News on YouTube did a video on this misleading item and warned everyone that it was basically false advertising. The “look” of this is just tragic.

I guess I’m in the minority. I actually like this as a soft pink blush on me (I’m pretty darn fair). It does brighten my face because of the pink tone, and I think if you’re used to wearing matte highlighters, you would enjoy the product. It’s a natural look, though.

I do understand people are upset about the overspray and hoping for a pigmented shimmery pink blush.

That’s actually how I feel about it, too! I feel it could be pretty dusted all over the face, especially if you are someone who is very fair (like me!)

I love this! It’s smooth and easy to blend, covers the redness and unevenness in my cheeks, subtly blushes and mattifies my face, covering pores, and then allows me to use more pigmented blushes or highlights I could have never used like I want. Total winner with MAC Dazzlepink!
The overspray was useless, but thanks to this review I knew what it actually was and what it actually is is what I have been looking for, lol. You saved them a sale!

We try to approve comments within 24 hours (and reply to them within 72 hours) but can sometimes get behind and appreciate your patience! 🙂 If you have general feedback, product review requests, off-topic questions, or need technical support, please contact us directly. Thank you for your patience!