REVIEW: NARS Pure Radiant Tinted Moisturizer

Few things make you feel better about your spending habits and your "makeup rehab" progress than buying just two items and spending under $60 at a Sephora sale. While very few products tickled my fancy, I was definitely looking forward to testing out the NARS Pure Radiant Tinted Moisturizer. Admittedly, I haven't had much luck with NARS formulas, but I've heard nothing but raves for this sheer foundation.

The NARS Pure Radiant Tinted Moisturizer will run you $45 for 1.9oz. Yes, that's bigger than the standard 1oz tube, but you'll want to use almost 1/4 teaspoon of this product to get the listed SPF30 and some coverage, so you'll go through it faster. I've always been a fan of NARS's simple, sleek packaging, and this black squeeze tube is no different.

Natural light on top, flash on the bottom. From left to right: Buxom Show Some Skin Foundation in Tickle the Ivory, NARS Pure Radiant Tinted Moisturizer in Finland, NARS Radiant Creamy Concealer in Chantilly, Sephora Bright Future Gel Serum Concealer in 03 Fondant.

I went for the lightest shade in the range, Finland, which is listed as the palest shade with yellow undertones. I think the undertones look a bit peachy, and it's closer to NC15 than my usual base product choices, but it was workable for me. I'm more disappointed by the darker end of the range: there are only a couple of deep shades, and the gaps between them are pretty big. Given the shade ranges on their more recent launches, I know NARS can do better.

This is a tinted moisturizer, so I didn't expect much coverage. However, this product definitely gave me a more even, healthy-looking complexion, and he also concealed the pink post-inflammatory pigmentation I had on my cheeks. It generally looked smooth and natural on my skin, but it clung a little to the dryer parts of my face, especially my chin and the lower half of my cheeks.

The NARS tinted moisturizer also has a strong perfume-y scent that I could smell as I applied it. I didn't notice it throughout the day, but it was potent enough to make me go "ugh" while I rubbed it in.

Despite the strong fragrance and the bit of clinging, I really liked how this tinted moisturizer made my skin look shortly after application. It photographs beautifully, especially on a cell phone, and it looks incredibly natural. I definitely noticed the shine appearing on my nose around the 3 hour mark, but it still looked good. Then we get to the 8 hour photo, and wow, when is the last time you ever saw my face look that shiny?! (There's a secret part of me that wants to love the shine, since my skin is so dry that it only looks that shiny after I've applied moisturizer, but the logical side of me knows it's not a good look.) Besides the shine, you can also see that the tinted moisturizer has worn off of my nose completely.

I may have kept this tinted moisturizer for work days and just used a powder or a primer on my nose, but there's another problem: this irritated my skin. Every time I put it on, I would develop a new pimple or an angry hive within an hour. The ingredients list looks relatively benign, so if I had to blame anything for this, I'd blame the fragrance.

So I guess I can amend the introduction to this post: I'll be returning this tinted moisturizer and will therefore have purchased just one item from the recent Sephora sale. Hey, you gotta take your wins where you can get 'em.

RATING: 3 out of 5

I buy my NARS products from Sephora.

REVIEW: Make Up For Ever Ultra HD Invisible Cover Foundation

I remember when the original Make Up For Ever HD liquid foundation launched. High definition was becoming THE standard in television and photography, and people had to figure out new ways to put on their makeup without looking made up on camera. MUFE HD foundation promised to give you that perfected-but-not-Photoshopped look. I bought it in what was then the lightest yellow shade, 115, and found that it was too dark for me, great in pictures but makeup-y in person, and overall just not to my tastes.

I also remember when Make Up For Ever reformulated a lot of their base products. The switch from their admittedly gorgeous, but smelly Face and Body foundation to the sheerer, still stinky Water Blend prompted a lot of hurt feelings on the net. However, the reformulated HD liquid foundation received a more mixed review, with some raving that it was far superior to the original formula and others grousing that they didn't like the new version. I waffled on buying this for years before getting a Sephora gift card via Ebates (note: referral link) that would cover the cost.

Natural light on top, ring light in the middle, flash on the bottom. From left to right: Make Up For Ever Ultra HD Invisible Cover Foundation in Y205, Kevyn Aucoin Sensual Skin Enhancer in Sx01, NARS Sheer Glow Foundation in Siberia, Tarte Shape Tape Concealer in Fair, The Ordinary Coverage Foundation in 1.0N.

The reformulated MUFE HD liquid foundation is roughly equivalent to the previous formula in terms of price and packaging: you're paying $43 for just over an ounce of product in a clear, plastic bottle with a pump. The pump is easy to control and dispenses just a little product at a time, so don't be freaked about their "two pumps" recommendation--it's not as much foundation as you might think. The biggest change in the formula, in my opinion, is the shade range; there is now a yellow shade light enough for me (Y205 Alabaster), and there are multiple very deep shades.

Actually, I think Y205 might be a bit too light for me, since it seems to match my super pale neck and that's more fair than I normally like to go, but you can be the judge of that. I did not notice any oxidation.

The formula itself feels thinner than the original Ultra HD, almost like it has a bit of air fluffed in to it. The smell is not especially strong to me after application.

Applying this foundation with a brush gave me a true medium coverage, but it was much drier feeling and looking than I want. In fact, it felt a bit uncomfortable on my dry, dehydrated skin applied straight to the face that way. So from then on, I applied it with a damp Beauty Blender over a rich moisturizer (usually Belif Moisturizing Bomb). This gave me slightly lighter coverage, but only slightly; I'd still call that "after" picture medium coverage.

The good news is that, like its predecessor, this formula looks beautiful in photographs. It gives me skin a downright soft focus look in both cell phone selfies and HD pictures. The bad news is that it doesn't look quite that good in real life. It's dry and makeup-y without being patchy, flaky, or heavy-looking; the best way I can describe it is "chalky." Get within three feet of me wearing this product, and you'll think I've dusted my face with a flour. I actually felt uncomfortable in public when I wore this foundation to the grocery store because I knew it looked so odd.

 Me wearing MUFE Ultra HD Invisible Cover Foundation.

I also had a Hell of a time getting it to apply to my nose. Unfortunately, the HD-ness of this foundation made it almost impossible to photograph these foibles, but if you zoom in on the above "after" picture, it should be a bit more clear. (Not the salty Demi Lovato gif, the actual photos of my face.)

So it's not as "unnoticeable" as MUFE claims. It is, however, weightless when applied with a Beauty Blender. I felt like I had nothing on my skin when I wore this.

Note: I did blot with a blotting sheet after taking the 3 hour photo.

Ultra HD Invisible Cover Foundation was "meh" on me in terms of wear as well. Again, it looked gorgeous in pictures, but it got drier and more chalky on most of my face and faded off of my nose throughout the day. It didn't control the oil on my nose, either, which makes me think it's not a good option for truly oily skin.

I was hoping I'd like this reformulated product better than the original. Unfortunately, my feelings are roughly the same: it's great in photographs and weird looking in any other scenario. Granted, "chalky" is a different look from the original formula's "heavy," but it's still unattractive. What a bummer. Maybe I'll give Water Blend a second chance, but really, the smart thing to do might be to give MUFE a wide berth. I think it's an overall lovely brand that just doesn't suit my skin or my needs.

RATING: 3 out of 5

I purchased this product from Sephora.

REVIEW: Glossier Lidstar

I'm weirdly irritated by people who try to do a "full glam" look with makeup that's meant to be sheer and natural, and then they complain about it being sheer and natural. This seems to happen a lot with Glossier: they complain that the Perfecting Skin Tint "has no coverage" (it's not supposed to have any), or that Haloscope "just looks wet" (that's the point). While I'll rag on Glossier for a lot of things, particularly their marketing, I'm not going to complain about them making barely-there products. "Barely There" could actually be the brand's name. The just-released Glossier Lidstars are no different. They aren't advertised as high impact colors; the tagline for the product is actually "less shadow, more glow," and three of the six shades are described as "sheer."

That said, there's a difference between "sheer" and "invisible," and I know that's a legitimate fear some people have regarding these eyeshadows. And while I may not complain about their overarching aesthetic, I will rant about another factor in this review. So, you know...fair warning.

Glossier Lidstars currently cost $18 each or $30 for any two shades. At 0.15oz per tube, they're the same size as most other liquid eyeshadows; you can compare them to the Stila Glitter and Glow Liquid Eyeshadows or the Make Up For Ever Star Lit Liquids. It's a plastic "test tube" sort of packaging with a doe foot applicator. Some people find it cute. I think it looks like a cheap tube of lip gloss from the 1990s, but hey, I'm turning 30 next month. Maybe I'm just an old fuddy duddy.

The real problem with this packaging isn't the appearance, though, it's the function. I'm not ashamed to say I was truly excited about these shadows when they launched, so imagine my frustration when I ripped open my pink bubble mailer and discovered that two of the six shades took a ton of effort to open. Slip took me a minute of twisting with a towel to finally open up, whereas Herb was stuck so tight, I had to enlist my mother to twist the tube one way while I twisted the cap in the opposite direction. After five minutes of wrenching, it eventually opened, but if you were somebody with reduced hand function, this would be a complete nightmare. When I complained about this on Instagram, multiple people messaged me and said they had the exact same issue, and one lovely follower pointed out that makeup artist Katie Jane Hughes (often featured by Glossier) had difficulty opening the tubes on an Instagram Live video. This is not an isolated issue.

On top of that, the lids for these tubes are really quite tiny. I have a tough time fitting my thumb, pointer, and middle fingers on the applicator, and I have relatively small hands. It hasn't been too much of an issue for me because I have full function in my hands and can grip the lid firmly, but it's definitely a bit awkward, and again, people who can't grip as well or as hard will likely find controlling the Lidstar applicator difficult. I think the fix for this is easy: make the lid longer, update the tube or the lid so that it's rubberized or textured, and/or update the packaging so that there's an edge to grip. Oh, and don't screw the damn things on so tight in the factory.

Natural light on top, ring light on the bottom.

Let's move on to the shades and performance of the actual liquid eyeshadow locked away in those obnoxious tubes. First, there are three very sheer shades: Moon, a champagne, Lily, a lilac, and Slip, an oyster pink. Then there are three more pigmented colors: Herb, a golden olive, Fawn, a taupe, and Cub, a rose gold. They all have a refined shimmer to them that thankfully doesn't flake off throughout the day.

Tin foil hat time: I find it very suspicious that, at the time of this review, Glossier's demo photos of the three sheerer shades don't feature anybody with dark skin. They have a video of Mekdes applying every color, but nobody darker than her seems to be featured. Will they actually show up on anybody who isn't as white as I am? I'm not sure. Darker skinned readers, please report back!

Glossier describes their Lidstar as "a wash of soft, glistening color that lasts all day...no need for primer." Now, "soft and glistening" is right up Glossier's natural glowing alley, but "lasts all day without primer" made me tilt my head. Their products are generally known for being easy to apply and barely perceptible on the skin, but not having the best staying power, especially if you have oily skin. I usually wear primer under all of my eyeshadows to prevent creasing, but I was so intrigued (and so lazy) on one particular work day that I decided to skip the primer. They also said that the formula is extremely blendable, even with fingers, so I paid close attention to that as well.

Here are macro shots of every shade except for Herb--feel free to zoom on. On the left, we have two layers of Slip (one layer is almost imperceptible), worn to work with no primer. Shockingly, I found that it did, in fact, stay creaseless for most of the day. There was one big crease in the middle of my eyelid after 12 hours, but you had to be decently close to see it, and the shadow hadn't broken up or smeared otherwise. These definitely stick, so you'll need a strong makeup remover to get them off.

The other two shots show Lily and Fawn, then Cub and Moon, over primer. I do prefer to wear them this way since it takes the creasing from 5% to 0%. Take a look at that middle shot, though, for a very obvious problem: Fawn applies patchy. When I put it on the outer half of my lid and tried to blend it in to Lily, it basically pulled away the shadow that was already there. I had to keep fiddling with it to get it to be visible, let alone decent. I had a similar problem with Herb: it applied very patchy and didn't blend well with other shades.

A post shared by Renee (@reneesanatomy) on Mar 11, 2018 at 10:30am PDT

Here's the full FOTD with Moon and Cub.

By contrast, the sheer shades applied smooth and even, even if I added another layer for more impact. Cub ended up being somewhere in the middle. One layer was very "meh" and slightly patchy, but two layers was smooth and beautiful.

I also tested blending these with a brush. Fingers definitely work best because they set so fast, especially on that first layer, but you can certainly use a fluffy brush to smooth out edges or spread the product evenly. Just be sure to use the lightest touch possible--too much pressure will pull the shadow up and leave you with bald spots.

 I'd love to round my Lidstar score up from a 3.5 to a 4. While Herb and Fawn are letdowns, the other shades are really lovely, and the claims that they will look soft and stay on are totally true. But I'm sticking with a 3 because of that packaging. Ignoring my personal dislike of the actual look of the tubes, they just aren't as functional as they could be. Glossier listened to their customers before when there were complaints about the Generation G tubes; hopefully, they'll listen here, too.

RATING: 3 out of 5

Glossier products are available at their website. Affiliate link: Glossier.

 These products were purchased from Glossier.com using store credit earned through referrals.

REVIEW: Make Beauty Custom Finish Effects Matte/Dew

The forum and "Big YouTuber" hype machine doesn't usually get to me. Sure, influencers with a million plus subscribers will sometimes rave about a product that piques my interest, but seeing a cringe-worthy shade range or a bad-for-me ingredients list almost always turns me away.

I can't say the same for bloggers, Instagrammers, and smaller creators I follow. Since they're less likely to be swayed by sponsorships and more likely to use under the radar products that fit my aesthetic, I'm prone to lusting after their favorite products. And when The Critical Babe kept posting about this Make Beauty product that promises both a mattifying cream and a highlighting cream, I was sold. The ability to customize my look? Oooooh!

Make Beauty Custom Finish Effects retails for $27. It arrives in a shiny, plastic black compact with a mirror; both attract fingerprints, obviously, but they're easy to clean and have that sleek, simple look I prefer.

When you open up the compact, you'll see a beige side and a pink side. Because I'm a dipstick used to seeing white or off-white cream highlighters and mattifiers, I initially thought they'd sent me a blush-and-bronzer combo by accident. Double check the instructions, though, and you'll see that they recommend applying the "peach formula to areas in need of shine control or matte finish, and the pink formula to areas in where you want moisture or a dewy finish."

It's actually smart to make the two sides completely different colors in the pan so you don't mix them up. Rest assured, they apply clear. As far as textures go, the matte side has a very thin, silicone-y feel to it, while the pink side feels stickier.

Let's talk about the claims. For starters, Make states that this product "will not clog pores" and is "hypoallergenic." Both of these are marketing phrases that don't actually mean much. A look at the ingredients list shows a number of components that some people find irritating or clogging, such as talc, ethylhexyl palmitate, and fragrance on the matte side, while the dew side contains various oils, waxes, and more fragrance. I didn't have any issues with breakouts or clogging, but it's worth noting.

Make also claims that this product can be used on top of foundation and powder. I found this to be partially true. In the above before-and-after photo, you can definitely see that the dewy side (applied to my cheeks) gives a subtle, slightly wet glow. It's somewhat similar to my beloved Glossier Haloscope, though I had to apply more of the Make product to get this look.

The matte side, though, didn't work quite as well. If you click on the above photo and look at my nose, you'll see that it gave me a bit of a "polka dot pores" look. This softened a little throughout the day, but it still didn't "reduce the appearance of lines and pores" like Make claimed it would, and it made my nose look a bit patchy and dry. I also applied the matte cream to my eyelids, and while it looked nice for the first hour, it quickly creased all over my lids and "grabbed" flakes from my mascara.

These creams also have dramatically different staying power. The dew effect lasted pretty much all day, while the matte effect lasted only a few hours on me, and I say that as somebody with fairly dry skin. In fact, my nose didn't just look shiny after a couple of hours, it looked shinier than usual. I could apply more of the matte side to tamp down the shine, but honestly, I'd have been better off just leaving my nose Make Beauty free.

I think the Make Beauty Custom Finish Effects creams work a little better on foundation-less skin. On this day, I went to work with the matte cream on my nose and the dewy cream on my cheeks. With no foundation to butcher, the matte side actually looks okay, but again, it became a grease slick by the time I was done teaching. The dewy cream is barely-there, natural, and slightly glowy.

So I only like half of this product, and that officially makes it a bust for me. But hey, that half is pretty damn nice. If Make Beauty sells it separately and they come out with a few more products that interest me, I might consider investing. You can never have enough dewy, glossy skin.

RATING: 3 out of 5

Make Beauty products are now available on Amazon.

REVIEW: Maybelline Dream Cushion Foundation

I stopped wearing a full face of makeup to class for a very specific reason: one day, when I was teaching with my usual assortment of gesticulations and hyper-active movements, I managed to swipe the sleeve of my white blouse right across my fuchsia lipstick. I didn't have time to run to the bathroom and fix the problem, so I finished class with my lipstick applied a la The Joker and a ruined shirt. After that, I decided to go to campus bare faced or barely-made-up.

But I started a second job this month, and since wildly waving your arms around medical equipment is generally frowned up, I figured it'd be a safer place to wear makeup. I'll still be waking up at 6:30am, so I wanted to try some products that promised fast and easy application. A friend recommended the Maybelline Dream Cushion Foundation, a western take on Korean cushion foundations. (Sidenote: I know that Korean cushions are often similarly priced and come in cuter packaging, but every one I considered contained one of my DO NOT TOUCH ingredients or didn't have a shade match for me.)

I bought the Maybelline Dream Cushion in the lightest shade, 10 Porcelain, for $12; prices may vary in your area. Like most cushion foundations, this product comes in a plastic compact with a puff for application and an inner lid to keep the foundation drying out. It's decently sturdy packaging and, as promised, mess-free. The only issue is that the puffs are very hard to clean; I know some people just buy replacements on the regular.

There's 0.5 ounces of foundation in this product versus the standard full ounce for liquid foundations. You might want to write that off because it doesn't seem like a traditional liquid foundation, but...that's actually exactly what it is. You've just got a sponge on top of the liquid foundation to alter the application. That said, you're expected to pay a bit more per ounce for the convenience and travel-friendliness.

Flash on top, natural light on the bottom. From left to right: Maybelline Dream Cushion Foundation in 10 Porcelain, Maybelline Dream Lumi Touch Pen in Ivory, NARS Sheer Glow Foundation in Siberia, MAC Full Coverage foundation in W10.

Porcelain seemed to be the lightest shade, but when I swatch it, it actually looks relatively neutral to me. It's certainly darker and less yellow than my go-to shade match NARS Siberia. I'd peg this one at roughly N15 on a MAC scale. I wish Porcelain was closer in color to the Maybelline Dream Lumi concealer in Ivory, but eh, it's doable.

As a whole, I'd say the shade range is pretty "meh." There are plenty of light and medium shades, but the deeper end of the range disappoints me. It's especially unfortunate when you consider how broad Maybelline's Fit Me range is.

I'd been told that the Maybelline Dream Cushion gave "next to no coverage," but that's not how it worked for me. In the before-and-after photos above, I dabbed the provided sponge on to the cushion, then pressed the product in to my face using quick patting motions. I'd consider this a relatively solid medium coverage: my skin tone is completely evened out, and my blemishes and redness are covered. At the very least, it's on par with my Buxom Show Some Skin Foundation.

On the other hand, applying with the sponge seemed to make the foundation a bit thicker than I wanted. It didn't look bad, per se, but it kept sliding in to and emphasizing the fine lines on my forehead and around my mouth. It could also look a bit makeup-y. So the next time I tested the foundation, I tapped a buffing brush in to the cushion, then buffed it in to my skin. This prevented the settling in to fine lines. However, it also gave me lighter coverage, streaked a bit, and still looked a little makeup-y and fake up close. Obviously, most people aren't going to get that close to me, but I noticed things like this creasing above my lip:

And that bothered me.

Another issue I experienced in person: oxidization. You can't notice it in photos like these, where I've applied the foundation less than an hour ago and it's photographing beautifully, but this foundation definitely went orange on me. Halfway through the day, I was practically a kumquat. A glowy kumquat, but a kumquat, nonetheless. While it's relatively rare for a foundation to oxidize like that on me, I noticed a decent number of "this got really dark on my face" comments in other reviews.

In terms of staying power, I got some shine throughout the day on several parts of my face, and there was no product on my oily nose by the 6 hour mark. That's an average performance from a satin-finish foundation, but if you're oily skinned, you'll definitely want to take a pass on this one. I also had some trouble with this foundation transferring throughout the day, though only if a decent amount of pressure was involved. The nosepads of my glasses and the inside of my hoodie, for instance, had tiny swipes of foundation on them, but my cellphone and my cat were fine.

Overall, the Maybelline Dream Cushion foundation didn't live up to my expectations. It photographs well, no doubt, but the oxidization is a deal breaker for me. More importantly, this is not as fuss-free to apply as a cushion should be. Add the mediocre shade range in to the mix, and I'll take Maybelline's Fit Me Foundation over this lackluster cushion any day.

RATING: 3 out of 5.

You can purchase Maybelline products at Ulta.

REVIEW: Glossier Wowder + All Shades Swatched

So Glossier tried some sneakier marketing, and I don't know if it worked out the way they expected. Between the name of the product (which has been trademarked for the past year) and the brand's usual font on their "teaser" website, the internet immediately sussed out that "Wowder" was a Glossier product. But while the tactic may not have worked the way the brand expected, it did kick up a lot of interest. The day this product launched, for example, I noticed half a dozen posts on various forums asking if anybody was buying Wowder or had tested it. And on that day, after I'd woken up and settled in with my coffee, I did indeed buy it.

I bought all three shades using my store credit.

And the brush.

And I had them shipped to me via next day air.

I was intrigued by this product and very eager to try it, despite the fact that there's only ever been one powder I've loved on my like-the-deserts-miss-the-rain skin.

Hey, I admit to being a bitch about marketing ploys, but I've never claimed that I'm totally immune to them.

Since I've mentioned the brush twice and I'm not a brush expert by any means, let's just get it out of the way. It wasn't specially designed for Wowder; it was made in China and is a basic, dense powder brush with a "G" on the end, so it's likely a private label product the company liked. The bristles are synthetic and they're very soft. For comparison, I'd say that this brush is similar in shape to the Real Techniques Expert Face Brush, but it's a little less dense, and it's not as fluffy or huge as most powder brushes. Basically, it's a perfectly decent brush that's worth it if you don't have a lot of brushes and you're purchasing the Wowder duo. However, if you have a powder brush you like? You probably don't need it.

Let's move on to the powder itself. Wowder is a loose powder that Glossier claims will give you "that glowy, real-skin finish, just without all the drawbacks of other powders." In other words, it'll be mattifying without being cakey or flat, smoothing without looking white in flash photos, and workable on both bare skin and over foundation. It's $22 for 0.25 ounces of product (or $35 for the powder and the brush) housed in a plastic container with a "trampoline mesh" insert and a screwtop lid.

Some people have complained about Wowder's packaging, saying it's not as "clean" or "elegant" as their other products. The jar may look like Benefit's cash poor, hipster cousin, but I don't think it's completely off-brand. Besides, the fact that Glossier sends you stickers to slap all over their products and never seems to use a model over the age of 30 suggests that they aren't striving for that grown up, sleek-and-chic image like NARS or Lancome.

That quarter of an ounce size has raised some eyebrows as well, and justifiably so--it's kind of tiny. When I compared the cost per ounce of Wowder to a slew of other loose powders, however, I noticed that it was middle of the road. Here they are, ranked from most expensive to cheapest:

Kevyn Aucoin Gossamer Loose Setting Powder, $72 for 0.11oz = $654.55/ounce
Makeup Forever Ultra HD Microfinishing Loose Powder, $36 for 0.29oz = $124.14/ounce
RMS Beauty Tinted Un-Powder, $34 for 0.32oz = $106.25/ounce
NARS Soft Velvet Loose Powder, $37 for 0.35oz = $105.71/ounce
Besame Brightening Setting Face Powder, $22 for 0.21oz = $104.76/ounce
Koh Gen Do Natural Lighting Powder, $42 for 0.42oz = $100/ounce
CoverFX Perfecting Setting Powder, $35 for 0.35oz = $100/ounce
Glossier Wowder, $22 for 0.25oz = $88/ounce
Armani Micro-Fil Loose Powder, $45 for 0.53oz = $84.91/ounce
Bare Minerals Mineral Veil, $23 for 0.3oz = $76.67/ounce
Kat Von D Lock-It Setting Powder, $30 for 0.67oz = $44.78/ounce
Laura Mercier Translucent Loose Setting Powder, $38/ounce
Cinema Secrets Ultralucent Setting Powder, $22 for 0.67oz = $32.84/ounce
MAC Studio Finish Face Powder, $28 for 1.4oz = $20/ounce
L'Oreal Hydra Perfecte Powder, $8.97 for 0.5oz = $17.94/ounce
CoverGirl Translucent Professional Loose Powder, $5.85 for 0.7oz = $8.34/ounce
Coty Airspun Translucent Powder, $5.90 for 2.3oz = $2.60/ounce
Obviously, Coty Airspun is cheap as fuck, Laura Mercier Translucent is a better deal than people give it credit for, and Kevyn Aucoin Gossamer will rob you of your next iPhone. Taken as a whole, though, I don't think the price for Wowder is awful. A bit higher than it probably should be? Yes. Exorbitant and completely out of touch with average makeup costs? Eh, not really.

I'll also point out that the trampoline mesh does, in all fairness, keep you from losing too much powder every time you open the jar or swirl your brush. The one exception is when you open a brand new jar and peel off the sanitary sticker; two of my three Wowder jars blew out little spurts of powder as I peeled back that sticker. But overall, you shouldn't have too much powder waste.

Wowder was produced in three shades, and you're meant to select whatever color corresponds to your Perfecting Skin Tint or Stretch Concealer shade: Light/Medium, Dark/Deep, and Rich. Again, I purchased all three colors and used Light/Medium on my own fair skin. The other two shades were swatched up against some medium-to-deep foundation and concealer samples I've collected.

 For swatching purposes, I applied the tiniest bit of Neutrogena Norwegian Formula hand cream to my arm to get the powder to stick and marked the swatch with some Milani Liquid Eyes eyeliner. As far as I can see, this did not impact the color accuracy of the swatches. I'm very fair, so please don't judge the depth of Dark/Deep and Rich by how dark they look on my arm; use the other shades as markers instead. In all of these swatches, the natural light photo is on top and the flash photo is on the bottom.

Light/Medium

From left to right: NARS Sheer Glow in Siberia; Milk Makeup Sunshine Skin Tint in Sand; Colourpop No Filter Concealer in Fair 5; Glossier Wowder in Light/Medium; Koh Gen Do Moisture Foundation in 001; Deciem The Ordinary Coverage Foundation in 1.0N; Urban Decay Naked Skin Concealer in Light Warm.

Dark/Deep

From left to right: Milk Makeup Sunshine Skin Tint in Medium; YSL Le Teint Touche Eclat in Cool Bisque; Glossier Wowder in Dark/Deep; Urban Decay Naked Skin Concealer in Medium Light; Koh Gen Do Moisture Foundation in 002 and 301.

Rich

From left to right: Milk Makeup Sunshine Skin Tint in Deep; Colourpop No Filter Concealer in Rich 75; Glossier Wowder in Rich; Koh Gen Do Moisture Foundation in 302 and 303; Urban Decay Naked Skin Concealer in Dark Golden.

This is a fairly inclusive shade range. I do wish Rich was a hair deeper, but Jackie Aina (linked above) was able to use it as a sort of natural contour powder on her skin, so perhaps I'm being overly picky. I will say that all of the shades read very neutral to me, though the product is (as I will show in a moment) so sheer that I don't think it'll matter much.

Now the ingredients! Glossier has done their usual "IT'S REVOLUTIONARY!" marketing ploy by claiming that Wowder is "not a powder" and is "unlike any powder you've met before." (Which, if it's NOT a powder, how are you comparing it to powders you've used BEFORE? I'm being a pedant. I'll stop. Sorry.) The truth is that Wowder contains many of the usual loose powder suspects: mica, silica, and kaolin top the list, and titanium dioxide and several iron oxides pull up the rear. Yet again, I wish Glossier would stop pretending their products are fresh, top-of-the-line formulations and instead focus on how easy and no-fuss their range is for the average consumer.

The one ingredient that concerned me, personally, was kaolin, which can suck the moisture from my already parched skin. I've used this product for about a week and haven't had any problems with this drying out my face or making me itchy. Also, it doesn't contain any of my acne triggers, but keep an eye out for your problem ingredients.

Sorry about the fucked up eyebrows. I was testing out a new technique.

 To demonstrate Wowder's texture, I decided to do most of this post's photos on a no-foundation day. I used the Wowder brush to apply a dusting of Light/Medium to my forehead, nose, and chin. The above before-and-after pictures look almost identical, right? You have to click on the picture and expand it to see a difference, don't you?

Yeah, that's not shocking. While Wowder does manage to mattify and smooth the skin a bit, it's a very subtle effect. This is clearly what the company wanted, and I won't deny that I'm happy with how much my skin still looks like skin. But if you're expecting dramatic results, you're not going to get it with this powder. It's very much a Glossier product, designed to be super sheer and natural. Here's a macro shot of my skin with a layer of the powder on top so you can see how seamlessly it applied:

So yeah, it's pretty on bare skin. It also looked nice on top of my staple foundations, MAC Face & Body and Buxom Show Some Skin. Wowder sounds like a wonder product so far.

But I noticed some issues with this powder over other base products. Specifically, it seems to cake up a bit over foundations and concealers that are more matte or have thicker formulations.

In the picture above, I applied MAC Face & Body all over my face, then used my NARS Radiant Creamy Concealer wherever necessary, which on this day included my chin. It's a bit tough to see, but take a peek at the section of skin I boxed in: that's Wowder clinging to, and getting flaky on, my NARS concealer. I also tested this on my mother's base products, and while Wowder looked lovely over her Laura Mercier Tinted Moisturizer (sheer and dewy), it went weirdly ashen over the IT Cosmetics CC Cream (medium coverage and satin).

Another issue with Wowder is the staying power. It's comfortable and satin-y on the dry parts of my face for about 3-4 hours before disappearing, and it only keeps my oily nose matte for about 2 hours before I have to reapply or blot. It does layer beautifully, insofar as reapplying the powder over oil breakthrough gives you the same smooth, soft look, but let's be honest: how many people are going to carry around a loose powder for touch-ups? And even if you're like me and you keep blotting sheets in your purse, shouldn't you get more than 3 hours out of a mattifying product?

Figuring out what to rate this product was a struggle. I do really enjoy it for my skin type and the looks I usually do, and it's a nice finishing touch on my no foundation days. I can see me using up the whole jar. But giving it a high rating just didn't feel right. After mulling it over, I realized the issue: I wouldn't recommend this to a lot of other people. If you have combination or oily skin, I can't imagine Wowder beating out your other loose powders, and it may cake up over your other base products if your taste in formulas is different from mine. If you have dry skin and you want a matte powder, I'm more likely to suggest the Dolce & Gabbana powder foundation I love so much, since it gives a matte finish with more coverage, better staying power, and a consistently smooth texture.

In the end, Glossier has done worse. They've also done better. Wowder is a decent powder, but it certainly doesn't (are you ready for it?) wow me like I hoped it would.

RATING: 3 out of 5

Glossier products are available on their website.

REVIEW: Milk Makeup Blur Stick

It probably seems a little weird for me to review a mattifying, pore-filling product when I'm incredibly dry-skinned and don't have too many visible pores. I do, however, have a nose that is irritatingly more oily than the rest of my face, and since my face is rather parched, my fine lines are generally very visible. Also, I got this as a free sample and there was a ton of buzz around it. Forever intrigued by Milk Makeup, despite the fact that only a couple of their products have actually worked for me, I decided to give the Blur Stick a shot.

A full size Blur Stick contains an ounce of product and retails for $36. While Milk's prices per unit are about right for Sephora, I will point out that their sticks tend to be quite hefty, and this one is no different. Seeing as this little sample has been used several times and still looks almost new, a full-size Blur Stick should last you a while. It has a slight citrus scent, but it's nothing overwhelming, and I can't smell it when it's on my face.

Milk makes several claims about this product. They say it is "colorless, oil-free, and silicone-free." In the most technical sense, they have two out of three right: this applies completely clear, and I'm not seeing any oils in the ingredients list. I do see silica, though, which is an oxide of silicone; hence, if you're extremely sensitive to silicone, this still may not work for you. As for its actual effects, Milk states that the Blur Stick will "minimize the appearance of pores and fine lines," provide a "smooth, matte finish," "lock in your makeup," and "will not clog pores." I've also noticed that some of their product posts and videos on social media have mentioned that you can use it on bare skin, under makeup, or over makeup, so I tried all three for this review.

For reviewing purposes, I photographed the Blur Stick when applied to bare skin; in this instance, I brushed it on my nose, in my smile lines, on the slightly larger pores on my inner cheeks, and around my eyes. Here's a before and after macro shot. (The "after" picture is a bit blurry because I suck at standing still, but you can still see some of the effects.) The results:

• Minimizing Pores: A slight effect. This did make my pores like a tad smoother and smaller, particularly on my nose, but it's not as "filling" as some other primers I've used. I had no problem blending blush on top.
• Hiding Fine Lines: No effect in real life, but a moderate effect in photos. Actually, this looked a bit bad on my smile lines in real life because it settled in to them. But in these photos, my smile lines definitely look less visible after applying the Blur Stick.
• Eye Area: Very slight effect; it mostly made my undereyes feel a bit smoother and made my eyelids look a tad more matte. Again, I had no problem blending makeup on top of it.
• Mattifying: This certainly gave my nose, eyes, and cheeks a very soft matte look. It's super natural, which is kind of nice for days when I'm not wearing foundation. I did test it as a blotter after wearing foundation for a few hours, and while it did seem to take off some of the excess shine, a blotting sheet or a powder is more effective and easier to use.
• Works on bare skin, under makeup, and over makeup: This worked about the same in all three instances for me. That said, I think I preferred it most on bare skin. The Blur Stick is quite slippery feeling on my face, and I wasn't really fond of the feeling of foundation on top of it.

While this product is incredibly lightweight and easy to use, it doesn't have the best staying power. Here's another macro shot of my face after about three and a half hours of wear. As you can see, my concealer has creased as per usual; the pores on my cheeks and my smile lines are fully visible. The one area where it really held up was in mattifying: my nose and eyelids are getting a little shiny, but they're definitely more matte than they'd be without the Blur Stick. Of course, you can layer a bit more Blur Stick on to your skin to get more blurring--it went on clear over this blush, for instance--but some people might find that 3-4 hour wear time a nuisance.

As a final note, I did not experience any clogging or breakouts with this product, and when you run the ingredients through Cosdna, it doesn't list any major cloggers. However, Milk warns that this product is "not recommended for those with a sensitivity to citrus or coconut oils," which makes me think this may aggravate skin that's sensitive to coconut-based ingredients or citrus.

I think I'll finish this deluxe sample up, just because it's an easy way to get "summer satin skin" on my no foundation days and the tube fits in my purse. But while the Blur Stick isn't terrible, I'd hesitate to recommend it to others. I just think there are better mattifying, blurring, and pore-filling primers on the market.

RATING: 3 out of 5

You can buy Milk Makeup products at their website.

NOTE: I stole the comic in the header from Kate Beaton's hilarious Hark! A Vagrant! strip. I swore I'd get HAV in here some day and now I have.

REVIEW: Makeup Forever Ultra HD Invisible Cover Stick Foundation

Two reviews within the span of a week? Man, what a rare moment we're having here! I'm actually functioning!

In all seriousness, this product has been hanging around on my vanity since December, and it's been photographed for almost a month, but I'm only just now getting the review up. I don't know what made me drag my feet on this one. I'd like to blame it on having two ass-kicking illnesses so close together (a sinus infection in February and the ever-delightful norovirus this past weekend), but honestly, I think I was just waffling because this product is a bit out of my comfort zone.

What was so odd about this product? Well, the Makeup Forever Ultra HD Invisible Cover Stick Foundation (we're calling it the MUFE HD Stick from now on) is, as the name suggests, a stick foundation. I think the last time I used a stick foundation was when I was hanging around with theater kids and budding drag queens in high school. I've used cream foundations since, make no mistake, but actual sticks? Not so much. I don't entirely get why, considering I technically draw on smaller parts of my face with little pigment sticks all the time--that's what lipstick is.

Maybe it was the price. At 0.44oz for $43, the MUFE HD Stick is about standard for a stick foundation in terms of size, and the cost is not shocking as far as high-end products go. Stick foundations often contain less product because it doesn't take as much to get the same effect compared to a liquid foundation. That said, I'm so used to liquid foundations clocking in at a full ounce that this definitely gave me pause, logic be damned. Also, the lightest yellow shade available at Sephora was Y225, which I worried would be a bit dark for me.

Natural light on top, flash on the bottom. From left to right: Makeup Forever Ultra HD Invisible Cover Stick Foundation in Y225, NARS Sheer Glow Foundation in Siberia, Kevyn Aucoin Sensual Skin Enhancer in Sx01.

As you can see in the above swatch photo, yep, Y225 was too dark for me. Because it has rather strong yellow undertones, and because I stopped it at medium coverage instead of building it up to full, I don't think it's too horribly obvious in photographs. There's definitely a difference between my neck and face, though, so bear and mind. Looking at these swatches, I would say Y225 is 1-2 shades darker than the other two foundations, and the Sensual Skin Enhancer seems more neutral. Overall, I'd peg Y225 at about NC15 on a MAC scale, maybe a bit lighter when it's blended out on the skin.

By the way, somebody I follow on Instagram recently pointed out that Makeup Forever is expanding the range for this foundation; they'll be adding an even paler yellow shade as well as some more deep shades. Keep on keepin' on, MUFE.

Like I said, I wanted medium coverage from this product. I noticed that a lot of people who reviewed this foundation on YouTube used copious amounts to get full coverage, so I used about half of what they applied and blended it out with a damp Beauty Blender sponge. The above shot from my webcam shows how much I applied to my right cheek; blended out, this covered my cheek, temple, and the right half of my chin.

Again, solid medium coverage was my goal, and I think the above before-and-after photos show just that. You could apply more product for fuller coverage, but with cream formulas like this, I find that you get a bit of caking. That said, this foundation felt weightless on my skin despite being a cream formula, so maybe you could get more mileage out of two layers of it.

Blending this out was incredibly easy, by the way, especially with the Beauty Blender. The formula is smooth and creamy, which is not shocking given the number of emollients and waxes in this formula and its stick format. When I tested this with a dense brush, I noticed that the creaminess actually led to some streaking, and it was a little uncomfortable to blend this with my fingers. I'd definitely recommend sticking with a sponge.

Here is a macro shot of the foundation shortly after it was first applied. As you can see, it's not quite the dewy, luminous dream I was promised (this is supposedly pure greasy glory on even the driest skin, according to most reviews). That said, it still looks decent: it's smooth, satin-y, and has done a good job of covering up my redness. I will point out that it settled in to lines and, if you were within a foot of me, it looked a bit makeup-y. That's probably a mixture of the coverage (since I normally go for sheer products) and the actual finish of the product. My partner saw me wearing it on Snapchat and told me he didn't like it because it looked "like a mask," but he later admitted that he was probably turned off by the too-dark shade and the more-than-usual amount of coverage.

From roughly a foot or more away, this foundation looked super smooth and flawless after application. It also photographs pretty damn well, as you will see, provided you aren't up-close and in-macro-mode.

From left to right: 15 minutes after application, 3 hours after application, 5 hours after application.

Here's where things get a bit hairy. Makeup Forever claims that this product is a "long-lasting, multitasking cover stick with invisible coverage." As I've already shown, the coverage isn't really invisible. Yeah, it looks good, but it also definitely looks like you're wearing makeup.

Multi-tasking is more fair, I must say. I skipped regular concealer on this day and just dabbed on a bit more of the foundation stick where needed, and I think it did a fairly good job. It brightened up my undereyes and hid blemishes well.

Long-lasting, though, is a crock of shit.

Look, I know cream formulas made for video and photographs are not the most tenacious on the market. They have a very specific niche to fill. But damn, does this stuff move! Even when I set it with a powder, it would transfer if I so much as tapped my face. Notice the bright red spots on my nose where the nose pads on my glasses sit? Yeah, they were visible within an hour. By the time I hit the three hour mark, my hose was oilier than ever and the product was starting to get weirdly textured and dry on the rest of my face.

Here's a macro shot of how this foundation looked on me after about 3 hours.

Beyond the fact that we are scary close here and I'm so sorry, isn't this a bit weird looking? While it looked gorgeous when it was first applied, and it still looked pretty damn good in pictures, anybody within a foot of me would see texture on my face that never before existed. My cheeks and chin actually look like they've got tiny little dots poked through a thick layer of foundation. It's not a good look.

As for using it as a touch-up or contouring product? Eh, that would be okay. It's certainly smooth and creamy enough to work for contouring and highlighting if you get the right shades and use a small amount. And while it got a bit wonky-looking if I layered this product on top of itself, I will note that using a small amount of this stick over a liquid foundation was just fine. I do think it could work well as a toss-it-in-your-bag product. But in the long run, it only looks good in pictures and videos, provided you aren't in super HD close up mode, and it doesn't do half of what it promises. At the end of the day, this is another foundation that left me disappointed.

RATING: 3 out of 5

Makeup Forever products are sold at Sephora.

REVIEW: Per-fekt Brow Perfection Gel

I have very fine, light brows, so I usually avoid tinted gels. In my experience, they either go patchy or full scouse. It's also difficult to find a color that won't read weirdly warm on me, for some reason. But I see so little written about Per-fekt's products that, when this brow gel popped up super cheap on Hautelook and looked great in the few Google swatches I could find, I took the plunge.

I paid less than $20 for both the Brow Perfection Gel and a small tube of their mascara because I got it on sale at Hautelook. The retail cost of this product is $22 for 0.15oz. The tube is similar in size to many mascaras, which makes it seem like a steal, but if you compare it to the amount of product in some other high-end tinted brow gels, you'll realize it's about par for the course. (As a side note, I find it interesting that Glossier Boy Brow gets a bad rap for being "a lot of money for too little product," yet if you do the math, it's par for the course for tinted brow gels.)

Anastasia Beverly Hills Tinted Brow Gel, $22 for 0.32oz

Bobbi Brown Natural Brow Shaper, $26 for 0.14oz

Too Faced Brow Quickie, $22 for 0.17oz

Benefit Gimme Brow Volumizing Fiber Gel, $24 for 0.1oz

Glossier Boy Brow, $16 for 0.11oz

I got my tube in the shade Espresso because it seemed like the most logical choice for my hair color. I can tell you that it is, most likely, way too dark for me. However, looking at the limited shade range, I don't think I could've used the other two options, Champagne and Caramel, because they look very warm. Espresso may be a bit dark, but it's also very ashy. On the whole, I think this shade range should be a bit wider if Per-fekt wants to compete.

 Glossier Boy Brow on the left, Per-fekt Brow Perfection Gel on the right

The brush for this brow gel made me a bit nervous at first; it's about the size of a standard mascara wand, only thinner. Compared to my mother's tube of Boy Brow, it looks gargantuan. That said, I found it very easy to control, probably because it's so thin.

Speaking of thin: the Brow Perfection Gel has a very watery texture. Hence, I didn't expect it to give me much color, just a bit of tint on the brows. The first time I tried it, I wiped off the brush once or twice, then went in.

These before-and-after photos are what my brows looked like after I used the Per-fekt brow gel, then went back in with a clean brow spoolie, because holy shit, does this thing drop a lot of product! And it's pigmented, too; it coats the brow hairs and paints the bare skin beneath. Normally I dislike this because, again, brow gels tend to look patchy on bare skin. But the Per-fekt Brow Perfection Gel looks decently smooth and natural on my bare patches.

The next time I used this brow gel, I wiped off the brush a lot before going in. The above photo demonstrates the results: the color is off and I wouldn't call it perfect or natural, but it's certainly serviceable, and my brows definitely look fuller. As with most brow gels and tints, the Per-fekt product may be a bit better for people with naturally decent brows who just want to fill in small gaps. However, they'll still have to wipe off the brush to avoid looking like they took a Sharpie to their face.

While I like the general look of this product, especially for minimal makeup days, I'm not too impressed with its performance. It doesn't have much hold, so askew hairs are hard to cement in place. The staying power is iffy as well: it didn't fade or flake on me, but if I touched my brows, I could definitely smear it around.

It doesn't look too dark in this photo, but it seems to read a little blacker in real life.

As it stands, I think I'll finish up this tube, but I won't repurchase. Not only are the shade options all wrong for me, it doesn't have much hold and it's easily overdone. In the end, the Per-fekt Brow Perfection Gel ended up being like every other tinted brow gel I've tried: not quite right for me, only recommended for a select group of people.

Rating: 3 out of 5

You can buy this product at Sephora.