The Hype Machine: Yves Saint Laurent Touche Eclat High Cover Radiant Concealer

The Hype Machine is a series that takes a critical look at well-loved, cult classic, appears-in-every-other-Instagram-photo products and asks: are they worth the hype?

A little under two years ago, this same series ranked the original Touche Eclat All-Over Brightening Pen as an above-average product, versatile and lovely, but probably more expensive than necessary. I've continued to use my Touche Eclat pen primarily as an undereye brightener, mixing it with my concealer du jour to get a bit less coverage and a brighter, slightly dewier finish. So when YSL released a true-blue concealer version of Touche Eclat (because, again, the original is not really a concealer; stop yelling at the poor thing), and when it was reviewed positively by bloggers I trust, I decided to bite the bullet and use up my gift cards.

Natural light on top, ring light on bottom. From left to right: YSL TE High Cover in 0.75 Sugar, YSL TE Brightening Pen in 2 Luminous Ivory, NARS Radiant Creamy Concealer in Chantilly, Glossier Stretch Concealer in G11.

What got me a little stuck was the shade range. I couldn't decide between the lightest shade, 0.5 Vanilla, and the second-lightest shade, 0.75 Sugar. After receiving several super-helpful comments on Instagram, I decided to go with 0.75 Sugar, since this is clearly meant to be an undereye/brightening concealer, and I knew the peachy tones of 0.75 would work well on my dark circles.

I'm glad I went with that shade. First of all, yes, 0.75 is DEFINITELY peach-toned, and it definitely works well on dark circles--more on that in a moment. Second, it's closer to the original Touche Eclat pen in 2 than you'd think. See, the original Touche Eclat pen darkens up a bit as it dries: it comes out looking almost identical to the very pale NARS Chantilly, but it ends up being about a shade darker. I'd peg the YSL Touche Eclat High Cover at about NC/NW 15 in terms of depth, and the YSL Touche Eclat All-Over Brightening Pen is maybe half a shade lighter.

The only other product on my face in these photos is a thin layer of the Surratt Surreal Skin foundation, which, LOOOOL, look at that beautiful application right over my top lip. I'M AN ARTIST.

The new High Cover version of Touch Eclat features a nearly identical metal tube and brush tip applicator; the only difference is that the High Cover version includes a black label, which is honestly helpful for differentiating between the two tubes quickly. I love the feeling and the weight of this packaging, and unlike many click tubes, it only takes a few clicks to get the product started.

One click will get you about twice as much product as you see in the above-middle photo. I actually find that a full click of this concealer is a bit much for me, so I just leave the rest on the brush for touch-ups or my next application. However, I tend to wear very thin layers of my base products, I only use this on my undereyes, and I have a sort of small face; you may use a whole click if you're covering more surface area or like more coverage.

Now, the name of this product may make you think this is going to completely blank out your dark circles. I don't think that's the purpose of this concealer. Instead, I think the name means this is a "high coverage version" of Touche Eclat (versus a traditional, maximum coverage concealer). I'd say this is a very natural, beautiful, just-barely-medium coverage concealer.

I can hear you scoffing. "Natural?! It looks like you smeared Vaseline on those undereyes!"

Look, I get what you're saying: my undereyes look hella-glossy in that after photo. But remember that it was photographed with a strong ring light shining directly down on me. In every other lighting situation I tested this in, including the all-important natural light, this just looked like a satin-y, natural, skin-like concealer. See the above natural light Instagram shot for proof!

You can also dust this very lightly with some powder to make it a natural matte texture. I found that powder took away any and all shine, and it prevented a bit of the (inevitable) creasing, but it didn't clump or cake.

Finally, let's answer that all-important question: is it worth the price? Again, I have to give you a wishy-washy "yes and no." For me, it's a pretty stellar product that's easy to apply, works well with all of my foundations, and really brightens up my face. I used to put two products on my undereyes; now I'm down to one. If you're like me and you have a hard time finding a single undereye concealer you like, it's aces. But if you already have an undereye concealer you love, I don't know that this luxury product is necessarily going to top it.

BOTTOM LINE: YSL has created a higher-coverage version of their beloved Touche Eclat pen that delivers natural, medium coverage that really works on my undereyes. If you're looking for a great undereye concealer, this could be the one for you; if you've already got a favorite, feel free to give this pricey pen a pass.

The Hype Machine is a series that represents my experiences and opinions. It is not meant to be a personal attack on a specific company, product, or consumer. I always recommend that you try products for yourself and see how they work for you. Everybody is unique, after all!

New Assortment of Light and Dark Swatches

Between orders I've placed on Sephora and Nordstrom and a swap-for-samples with a generous Redditor, I've gathered enough foundation and concealer cards to do another slew of swatches! I tried to pick cards that came with both a light and dark shade; samples that only included medium shades, like the NARS and Bare Minerals ones, were not used for this post. As always, if any company would like to send a sample of their lightest and darkest base product shades for me to swatch, please contact me via the email on the side bar. This is especially relevant for dark shades--for whatever reason, companies never include anything near the darkest shade in the range on their sample cards.

These swatches were photographed in three lighting situations: natural light on the left, ring light in the middle, fill flash on the right. Please remember that these are being swatched on the inside of my arm, which is very light and leans cool yellow (NC5-ish). Hence, some undertones or shades may appear quite stark. My hope is that you'll be able to compare the shades to each other to figure out if you have a match. Also, I apologize about the disparity in swatch thickness; almost all of these came from free sample cards, and some of them give you almost no product to test.

From top to bottom:

•  Urban Decay All Nighter Liquid Foundation in 1.0.  This is the lightest warm shade in the range.
• Laura Mercier Flawless Fusion Ultra Longwear Concealer in 1N. This is the lightest neutral shade in the range.
• CoverFX Natural Finish Foundation in N20. The CoverFX range includes neutral (N), warm (G), and cool (P) undertones; there are two neutral shades lighter than this, and there are equivalent cool and warm shades.
• Bobbi Brown Skin Long-Wear Weightless Foundation in Sand. There are five shades before this.
• Make Up For Ever Ultra HD Invisible Cover Foundation in Y225. There are two warm shades lighter than this and several lighter shades with different undertones.
• Fenty Pro Filt'r Soft Matte Longwear Foundation in 150. There are five shades before this.
• Marc Jacobs Shameless Youthful-Looking 24H Foundation in Light Y210. There are three shades lighter than this.
• Lancome Skin Feels Good Skin Nourishing Foundation in 01N Nude Vanilla. This is the lightest neutral shade; 01N and 010C are currently the lightest shades in the range, but they have different undertones.
• NARS Sheer Glow Foundation in Siberia. This is the lightest yellow shade in the range.

From top to bottom:

• Urban Decay All Nighter Liquid Foundation in 8.0. There are six shades after this.
• Laura Mercier Flawless Fusion Ultra Longwear Concealer in 4N. There are three shades darker than this in the range.
• CoverFX Natural Finish Foundation in N100. The CoverFX range includes neutral (N), warm (G), and cool (P) undertones; there are two neutral shades darker than this, and there are equivalent cool and warm shades. The darkest shade in the range is cool (P125).
• Bobbi Brown Skin Long-Wear Weightless Foundation in Espresso. This and Cool Espresso appear to be of similar depth, but with different undertones; they are the darkest shades in the range.
• Make Up For Ever Ultra HD Invisible Cover Foundation in Y505. There is one warm shade darker than this; most of the darker shades in this range have red undertones.
• Fenty Pro Filt'r Soft Matte Longwear Foundation in 420. There are seven shades after this.
• Marc Jacobs Shameless Youthful-Looking 24H Foundation in Tan 420. This is actually in the middle of the range; there are other "Tan" shades and five "Deep" shades.
• Lancome Skin Feels Good Skin Nourishing Foundation in 12W Sunny Amber. This is the darkest warm shade and currently the second darkest shade in the range. There is a big jump between this shade (12W) and the darkest shade (16C), which suggests that the range will be expanded in the future.

Another Slew of Light and Dark Swatches

I've gathered samples for the past few months and am now tentatively ready for a new slew of swatches. I say "tentatively" because it's damn near impossible to get truly dark foundation samples on sample cards. Most brands just use their "darkest-of-the-middle" shade. I'll repeat what I said on Instagram stories here: if any brand wants to send me 1-2 use samples of their lightest and darkest foundation and/or concealer shades (no full size products or payment needed), I'll gladly take them for my next swatch post.

I thought I'd try this in three lighting situations this time, so let me know what you think about that! The left photo is in direct sunlight, the middle photo is in indirect sunlight, the right photo is with flash. Please remember that these are being swatched on the inside of my arm, which is very light and leans cool yellow (NC5-ish). Hence, some undertones or shades may appear quite stark. My hope is that you'll be able to compare the shades to each other to figure out if you have a match. Also, I apologize about the disparity in swatch thickness; almost all of these came from free sample cards, and some of them give you almost no product to test.

From top to bottom:

• Tarte Rainforest of the Sea Aquacealer Concealer in Light. This is the third lightest shade in the range.
• Tarte Double Duty Shape Tape Concealer in Light. There are three shades lighter than this in the range.
• Kat Von D Lock It Concealer Creme in Light 3. This is the third lightest shade in the range.
• The Ordinary Coverage Foundation in 1.0N. This is the lightest shade in the range; there is currently a 1.0P shade that is equally light, but with a pink undertone.
• Becca Ultimate Coverage Foundation in Porcelain. This is the lightest shade in the range.
• Laura Mercier Flawless Fusion Ultra Longwear Foundation in 1N2 Vanille. This is the second lightest neutral shade in the range.
• Josie Maran Vibrancy Argan Foundation Fluid in RG5 Dynamic. This is the lightest shade in the range.
• Hourglass Illusion Hyaluronic Skin Tint in Ivory. There are two shades lighter than this in the range.
• Kevyn Aucoin Sensual Skin Enhancer in Sx01. This is the lightest shade in the range; Sx02 is a very similar depth, just a hair darker and more pink.

From top to bottom:

• Tarte Rainforest of the Sea Aquacealer Concealer in Deep. This is the second darkest shade in the range.
• Tarte Double Duty Shape Tape Concealer in Tan. There are three shades darker than this in the range.
• Milk Makeup Sunshine Skin Tint in Tan. This is the second darkest foundation in the range.
• Urban Decay Naked Skin Weightless Complete Coverage Concealer in Dark Golden. There are three shades darker than this in the range.
• Becca Ultimate Coverage Foundation in Maple. There are five shades darker than this in the range.
• Laura Mercier Flawless Fusion Ultra Longwear Foundation in 5N1 Pecan. This is the second darkest neutral shade in the range.
• Josie Maran Vibrancy Argan Foundation Fluid in RG80 Magical. This is the second darkest shade in the range.

REVIEW: Tarte Double Duty Beauty Shape Tape Concealer

I have sought my perfect concealer for years. I've found plenty that I've really loved, like the NARS Radiant Creamy Concealer and the Kevyn Aucoin Sensual Skin Enhancer, but I've yet to find that one pot or tube that made me say, "Ooooh, yes, that's the one." So when something like Tarte Shape Tape (which is what everybody actually calls this concealer) hits the scene and causes a fervor, I take notice.

Then I actually watched people applying it, and I shrank back. As the name suggests, this concealer is targeted at and marketed for a more "full on" look. That means you apply copious amounts of concealer at strategic points on the face to create shading and highlighting. See how Nikkie Tutorials uses it in this tutorial for a clear example:

Oof. I have nothing against Instagram-style, really dramatic makeup, but I've never been able to do it on my face. It just feels like way too much. And that amount of concealer is definitely going to look bizarre on top of my generally sheer foundations.

Of course, you don't have to apply that much product, and that's what kept me vaguely interested. Promise me "hydrating full coverage" spot concealing, guys, and I'm there. But then I realized that this product was (at the time) exclusive to Ulta, and once again, I was turned right off. I just don't shop at Ulta much, well-loved rewards system be damned. I'm especially unlikely to shop there if I'm only buying one product, since they tack on $5 worth of shipping, and no amount of marketing technique awareness can get me past that. Eventually, I noticed the shade I'd need (Fair) going for a reasonable price on a blogsale, so I went for it. (Side note: the seller apparently reads my blog, so hi!)

Natural light on top, flash on the bottom. From left to right: Tarte Shape Tape in Fair, NARS Radiant Creamy Concealer in Chantilly, Kevyn Aucoin Sensual Skin Enhancer in Sx01, Colourpop No Filter Concealer in Fair 5.

Tarte Shape Tape retails for $27 for 0.33oz of product housed in a clear plastic tube. A third of an ounce is pretty hefty for a concealer, though if you're using it as a shaping product a la Nikkie Tutorials, you might go through it faster. The applicator is a large doe foot--more on that in a moment. There is a fragrance here, though I can't put my finger on what exactly it smells like; you can't smell the product after application.

In terms of shade, Fair is very similar to NARS Chantilly and Kevyn Aucoin Sx01. I'd say the Tarte is the same depth-wise, but has a bit less yellow in it. All three shades work well with my NC10-ish foundations. The shade range runs from uber fair to quite deep, but as with most Tarte products, the shade options really taper off at the darker end of the spectrum. I'm hoping they'll expand the range.

This product has a bit of a learning curve. If you want a more natural look, you'll have to wipe off the doe foot as much as you can, then dot the concealer only where needed. This is pretty full coverage stuff, so a little goes a long way. Apply too much over a natural base (which is what I favor), and you'll end up with a weird mask-like effect. The image above shows how much I normally use: two small dots under each eye (with a bit of a dewy corrector in the deepest part of my undereye hollows) and teeny dabs on any redness or blemishes.

Blending can also be tricky. If you have more oily skin or a really emollient base, you might find it easier to pat this out with your finger. I personally like to put a bit of moisture in to the concealer, and again, to make it look more natural. So I start blending it out with a damp Beauty Blender sponge, tap with my finger once the concealer is moistened, then finish with the Beauty Blender again. It sounds difficult, and it's certainly not as easy to apply as my NARS concealer, but it really only takes a few seconds. I think the end effect is worth it.

The biggest issue I have with Tarte Shape Tape, and the thing that made it difficult for me to use at first, is the absolutely enormous doe foot applicator. Again, this is marketed more toward people who want to shape and sculpt with it in a full-coverage look, so I get it. You're supposed to drag the flattened tip across your face to make actual stripes. But if you're trying to be more sparing with your application, this massive applicator makes it tough. It's legitimately huge in comparison to a more standard applicator, like that of the NARS Radiant Creamy Concealer. I've taken to using just the very tip of the doefoot and applying almost no pressure to my skin; even then, I can sometimes apply a little too much.

When it's all said and done, I honestly like the Tarte Shape Tape. I think it does a great job of concealing my blemishes without looking too dry or heavy, provided I use a light hand, and the Fair shade is a great match for me. I just wish they'd reconsider the applicator and add more to their shade range.

RATING: 4 out of 5

This product is available at Ulta.

The Hype Machine: Yves Saint Laurent Touche Eclat Radiance Perfecting Pen

 The Hype Machine is a series that takes a critical look at well-loved, cult classic, appears-in-every-other-Instagram-photo products and asks: are they worth the hype?

Few things are as iconic and infamously luxe as this highlighting pen, the Yves Saint Laurent Touche Eclat Radiance Perfecting Pen. Despite being such an enduring and immediately recognizable product, a lot of people seem to have issues figuring out what to do with this pen; it doesn't provide enough coverage to mask dark circles, nor is it as reflective as most modern highlighters. I was a bit stuck when I first tried it, too, mostly because it is considered an untouchable classic and I was afraid of messing it up. Now that I've fiddled with it for a few weeks, I think I'm ready to give you my thoughts.

First, let's clarify what this isn't: it's not a concealer. It's too sheer to cover up the darkness under your eyes, and it's too shiny to hide a blemish. It's also not a glittery, sparkly, or even dewy product; it's got more of a natural, healthy-skin like satin glow. That said, I've used the blog's "concealer" and "highlighter" labels because they best represent where you use this product and the effect it gives. Quote the Sephora summary, it "brightens, smooths, and perfects your complexion...highlight(s) your best features without any shimmer or glitter." For $42 a pen, it had better be damn good at perfecting stuff.

I've been using the shade #2 on the tops of my cheekbones, in the hollows of my eye, and under my brows. As you can see here, it blends out seamlessly and gives a lovely bit of glow and dimension. Because it's very sheer, it won't make your blush look muddy or look too stark around your eyes. The actual texture of the Touche Eclat pen is very thin and smooth, so it's comfortable on the skin and even blends well over fine lines. It works well with other products; obviously, it mixes with my undereye concealer, but I've also been tapping my Glossier Haloscope on top of it on my cheeks, and the combination is dewy and lovely.

That sounds majestic and perfect and glorious, but let's be honest here: is this a look that's so hard to get with other products? Nah. I can get a similar seamless glow from MAC Strobe Cream and equally effective color correction from the Maybelline Dream Lumi Pen; if I want something that adds a little glow and some color under my brows, I can mix a dash of concealer with my Strobe Cream. This is also a typical YSL product insofar as it reeks of perfume.

It's a lovely brightener that I've really enjoyed and will likely finish. I'd also have no qualms recommending it to other people who want this sort of effect. Am I going to repurchase it, though? Eh, I dunno. I don't think it's entirely necessarily, especially at that $42 price point. Still, I can see why it's been so beloved for decades.

BOTTOM LINE: This is an overhyped, but relatively versatile highlighting pen that's invisible on the skin, so it's no wonder it became a cult classic. That said, if you've got an undereye brightener and a natural highlighter you already like, you don't have to rush out and buy this $42 pen.

The Hype Machine is a series that represents my experiences and opinions. It is not meant to be a personal attack on a specific company, product, or consumer. I always recommend that you try products for yourself and see how they work for you. Everybody is unique, after all!

REVIEW: Colourpop No Filter Concealer

The internet damn near broke when Colourpop announced they were releasing concealers. Colourpop has released a wide range of cheap makeup (some more successful than others), and now they were stepping in to the complexion product ring. Personally, I've yet to find a concealer that truly wows me, so I wasn't too interested in trying out the No Filter Concealer until I caught sight of their shade range. Yes, there's still a drop off in the variety of shades and undertones at the darker end of the spectrum, but at least there is a darker end of the spectrum. As soon as I snagged a great coupon, I bought both the lightest warm shade (Fair 5) and the darkest shade available (Rich 75).

The Colourpop No Filter Concealer retails for $6 a tube. I feel the need to point out that, yet again, Colourpop has created a product that is cheap per unit, but at 4 grams, each unit is a bit smaller than the standard 6-ish grams I've come to expect from a liquid concealer. Still, it's definitely a drugstore-priced product.

The concealer arrives in a sturdy plastic container with a white lid that scratches easily and a flattened doefoot applicator. I don't detect any fragrance, so yay!

I actually swatched both Fair 5 and Rich 75 against a range of products for my Glossier Wowder review, so I'm going to reuse those swatches. Please notice how these No Filter Concealer swatches are darker than you'd think from looking at the tubes; that's because this concealer turns 1-2 shades darker as it dries down on the skin. This is really important to consider when you're trying to get your perfect shade match.

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.

 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.

Again, there's some color changing as the concealer dries down and limited undertones at the darker end of the shade range, but overall, we're definitely covering the very fair to the very dark here. I'm totally impressed with the shade range.

On the day I photographed the Colourpop No Filter Concealer, I was testing it on top of my favorite foundation, MAC Face & Body. The picture on the left is my face with a thin layer of Face and Body; it definitely evens out my skin, but you can still see my undereye circles, the dark pigmentation from a healing blemish on my chin, and a bit of redness from a patch of hives between my brows. Concealer to the rescue!

I was initially a bit miffed by how light the concealer looked against my skin, but then I remembered that it darkens up within ten minutes, and it certainly did after I took these photographs. The Colourpop concealer has a smooth, thin texture and a weightless feel that worked wonderfully on my undereyes by softening up the darkness. On my blemishes, however, this product was less successful. I had to reapply the concealer to my chin three times to get any texture because it would pull up as soon as I tried to blend it out. It's almost like this concealer has a hard time sticking to foundation. In the end, I got medium coverage on my undereyes, light coverage on my redness.

I thought the concealer might soften up after it sat on my skin for a while, but while the color darkened and became a better match for my skin, the texture just got worse. Look above my eyebrow on the right side of this picture, and at my chin on the left side. See how weirdly dry and makeup-y those parts of my face look? That's the Colourpop concealer. It also drifted in to the fine lines under my eyes very quickly, as you can see in this picture, but that's fairly normal for me. I tapped it out with my finger and it looked fine.

Sadly, the concealer on my blemishes didn't fair so well. By the three hour mark, my forehead looked like a scaly mess. The Colourpop No Filter Concealer hadn't just faded, it'd taken the foundation underneath with it. I tried to reapply the concealer because I'm a glutton for punishment, but nope, it once again wouldn't stick to my skin properly.

I thought it might be an issue with MAC Face & Body, so I tested the concealer with other base products. I had better luck with this concealer sticking to bare skin on a no foundation day, but over other foundations? I had the same problem. And no matter how I applied it, the staying power of this foundation was pretty much garbage.

I had such high hopes for this concealer because of the low price, inclusive shade range, and lightweight texture. Unfortunately, I was totally let down by its staying power, coverage, and appearance on the skin, especially over foundation. You get props for the feel and the shades, Colourpop, but my praise stops there.

RATING: 2 out of 5

This concealer is available at Colourpop.com. This is an affiliate link that will give you $5 off of your first order and will give me $5 in Colourpop credit.

A New Slew o' Foundation and Concealer Swatches

I've managed to gather up a decent number of light and dark foundation swatches, so it's time for another slew! I swatched the lightest shades on the cards up against a "swatch standard," NARS Sheer Glow in Siberia. I also wanted to swatch the darkest shades on the cards, since it can be hard to find comparison swatches for deeper skintones.

The top image is in natural light and the bottom image is with flash. You can click on the images to expand them. Please keep in mind that, because I'm quite fair and have some cool yellow undertones, a lot of these swatches will look very stark or orange against my skin. My hope is that you'll be able to compare the colors to each other and potentially find a match.

From left to right:

• Becca Aqua Luminous Perfecting Concealer in Fair. This is the second lightest shade in the range. 
• Dermablend Cover Creme in Rose Beige. This is the third lightest shade in the range.
• Smashbox Studio Skin Concealer in Fair. This is the lightest shade in the range.
• Smashbox Studio Skin Foundation in 1.1. This is the third lightest shade in the range.
• Nars Sheer Glow Foundation in Siberia. This is the lightest yellow shade in most NARS ranges.
• Koh Gen Do Moisture Foundation in 112 and 001. These are the two lightest shades in the range.

From left to right:

• Becca Aqua Luminous Perfecting Foundation in Dark Golden. This is the second darkest shade in the range.
• Dermablend Cover Creme in Chocolate Brown. This is the second darkest shade in the range.
• Smashbox Studio Skin Concealer in Deep. This is the darkest shade in the range.
• Smashbox Studio Skin Foundation in 4.3. This is the second darkest shade in the range.
• Lancome Teint Idole Ultra in 500 Suede W and 470 Suede C. There is an entire set of shades darker than these in the 500 range.
• Koh Gen Do Moisture Foundation in 302 and 303. These are the darkest shades in the range.

Yet again, let me stress how frustrating it is that darker skin tones are not well represented in the beauty world. I figured, when I swatched most of these products, that these shades were in no way the absolute darkest the range had to offer. (I knew there were darker shades for the Lancome Teint Idole Ultra.) I mean, look at this! That's the second darkest shade in the Smashbox foundation? What? And am I going crazy, or do some of the undertones in these shades look quite extreme? Koh Gen Do 303 seems balanced and reasonably deep, but 302 looks so orange to me.

Mad props to Lancome, though, because that shade range is incredible.

REVIEW: Kat von D Lock-It Concealer Creme

I've recently come to the conclusion that the NARS Radiant Creamy Concealer is, in fact, the newest addition to my short list of Holy Grail products, so you wouldn't think I'd be trying another expensive concealer. However, I was placing an order at Sephora and noticed a coupon for a free deluxe sample of the updated Kat Von D Lock-It Concealer Creme, and I thought, "Eh, what the hey."

The Kat Von D Concealer Creme retails at $26 for 0.22oz of product. This is about standard size for a liquid concealer; the NARS Radiant Creamy Concealer is $29 for the same amount of product. The sample clocks in at 0.065oz, which is surprising to me given how generous it seems. The packaging is clear, sturdy plastic that lets you see how much product you have left and what the general color is. This is actually my preferred packaging for most base products. It comes with a slanted doe foot applicator. The doe foot pulls up a lot of product, at least in this sample tube, so I was constantly wiping it off on the lip of the container.

Natural light on top, flash on the bottom. From left to right: Kat Von D Lock-It Concealer Creme in Light 3, NARS Radiant Creamy Concealer in Chantilly, NARS Sheer Glow Foundation in Siberia, Kevyn Aucoin Sensual Skin Enhancer in Sx01.

Kat Von D et all have been working on expanding the shade range for her base products this summer, both on the fair and deep ends of the spectrum, and I think that alone deserves some applause. Unfortunately, the free samples were only available in select shades, including just one of the light colors: Light 3, described as "fair shell with a warm undertone." Light 3 is a bit too dark and a little too peachy for most of my concealing purposes. Based on the description and swatches from Phyrra, I'm thinking Light 1 would have been a better match for me.

However, those peachy undertones actually make the Lock-It Concealer Creme a good option for concealing my blue-tinged undereye circles. The texture helps as well: this is a matte finish concealer, but I find that it doesn't look exceptionally crepey or dry on normal or oily skin. (My undereyes are neither oily nor dry.) This concealer feels thinner to the touch than my favorite NARS, but is slightly tackier and more viscous than the popular Urban Decay Naked Skin. It feels weightless on the skin and gives my undereyes a brighter, more even appearance.

Here's a macro shot of the Kat Von D Lock-It Concealer Creme on my undereyes. As you can see, it has a very natural texture and does a good job of concealing my circles without looking or feeling cakey. While it looks very shiny in this picture, I'll note that it dries down a little more matte after a few minutes.

I didn't have quite as much luck using this product on my blemishes, however. While my undereyes are normal and my nose and eyelids are oily, most of my face is very dry and dehydrated. I tried patting the concealer on to pimples with both my fingers and a brush, and in both cases, it wouldn't completely stick. This experience, combined with the overall matte texture of the concealer, makes me think it's not the best option for dry skin.

I'm also irritated that they don't list the full ingredients on Sephora's website. Normally, if a product's ingredients aren't listed on Sephora, but it's available from other retailers, I'll grumble a little and find the ingredients elsewhere. Kat Von D is exclusive to the Kat Von D Beauty website and Sephora, so the lack of an ingredients list on both sites is an issue for me. Buzzwords like "non-comodogenic" really mean nothing: beyond the fact that not everybody breaks out from the same ingredients, it's been an unregulated term for as long as I can remember.

The Kat Von D Lock-It Concealer Creme isn't going to replace my NARS Radiant Creamy Concealer any time soon. That said, I like using my Light 3 sample on my undereyes, and I think the product is pretty solid. It's not my personal favorite, but I have no qualms recommending it to others.

RATING: 4 out of 5

Kat Von D products are available at Sephora.

REVIEW: Makeup Forever Ultra HD Concealer

I don't talk about concealer too much on this blog. It has less to do with the fact that I have decent skin and more to do with the fact that I don't try new ones very often. It's just hard to top the Kevyn Aucoin Sensual Skin Enhancer's coverage or the NARS Radiant Creamy Concealer's flexibility. And I have a "fair, cool yellow" match in both lines! Why stray?

Sephora had their VIB sale earlier this month, though, and I heard the siren's call of this new Makeup Forever Ultra HD Concealer. Touted as "invisible coverage" that will give you "instant under eye perfection," I knew I wanted to test this product out on the Underye Circles of Doom.

The Makeup Forever Ultra HD Concealer is a liquid concealer housed in a small squeeze tube with a tiny nozzle. I've heard a few people complaining that it's hard to control how much product you dispense, but I had no problem getting the ittiest bittiest smidge out of the tube; I just gave it a very gentle, quick squeeze. I like that this packaging is simple, but effective, and relatively sanitary. At $27 for 0.23 fluid ounces of product, it's on par price-wise with the aforementioned NARS Radiant Creamy Concealer and many other high end options.

Natural light on top, flash on the bottom. From left to right: Makeup Forever Ultra HD Concealer in Y21, NARS Radiant Creamy Concealer in Chantilly, Urban Decay Naked Skin Concealer in Fair Neutral, Kevyn Aucoin Sensual Skin Enhancer in Sx01.

I was told that this color range ran lighter than it looks on the website, and sure enough, Y21 (the lightest yellow-based shade) is one of the absolute palest concealers I've ever seen, if not THE palest. I will note, however, that its undertones look a bit more neutral than truly yellow to me, which I think makes the shades it's swatched against seem much darker by comparison. Regardless, I did have a shade match.

I also liked the texture of this product when I first felt it: it's an extremely thin liquid with plenty of slip. I figured it would be weightless and blendable.

The actual performance of this concealer, however, left much to be desired. I patted this on my undereye area and was miffed when I realized...it wasn't covering much of anything. It softened the area a bit and added shine, but if you have very dark undereye circles and you're not getting a lot of actual coverage from a product, shining a spotlight on the area is not optimal. You can see this in the before and after picture above: my undereye area is still dark, but now it looks slightly softer (good) and ashier (nooooooo).

Because it didn't do much for my undereyes, I decided to try blotting it on the two red cheek blemishes that were still somewhat visible through my foundation. Bad idea: the glowiness of this foundation bounced back tons of light, magnifying the imperfections. Those spots actually look white in the after photo. Now, this is marketed specifically as an undereye product, so it'd be a little uncouth to knock it for being worthless on blemishes. But it is disappointing that I couldn't find an alternate use for the product.

I tried applying this product with both a brush and my fingers, and neither seemed to alter the coverage or the finish.

You know what else is disappointing? The performance. This product dries very quickly. That's a trait I sometimes enjoy in a blemish concealer, since I don't want it rubbing off of my face. In an undereye concealer, however, it can emphasize fine lines and make the product harder to work with.

I was able to blend it over my undereye circles with relative ease, and I didn't fuss too much when some product settled in to my fine lines after about 15 minutes, since that happens with just about every concealer on the market. When I went to tap the product out of my lines, though, it would. not. budge. So each time I tested this stuff, I spent the day with blatantly shiny lines under my eyes. The one upside here is that the product is weightless, so at least I didn't have to feel those lines all day.

Oh, and hey, let's talk about that shade range again.

I mentioned I was a little miffed about the shade range when I first started testing this product, and a few people asked, "Why? You're so pale! I thought it running light would be a good thing?" Well, yes, I'm glad there's a shade for me. And I like that they separate undertones clearly: shades starting with a Y have a yellow undertone, shades starting with an R have a pink undertone.

But there are only 5 yellow shades and 5 pink shades, and the range runs light, and the darkest shade is described as being for "tan" skintones. Are you catching my drift? Are you seeing the issue here? If you aren't, go on ahead and do a Google image search for "Makeup Forever Ultra HD Concealer swatches." I'll wait.

What the sweet fuck is this shade range?! I regularly complain about shade ranges stopping at "white girl tan," but this takes it to a whole new level; this is whiter than monster truck rallies, pumpkin spice lattes, and New Hampshire.

Yes, there is room left for expansion--the red-based shades jump from R32 to R40, for instance--but why should we have to wait for people of color to be represented? It's an annoying trend in the US cosmetics market right now: base products are released with a small shade range, and anybody darker than about NW35/NC35 on a MAC scale has to pester the company to release deeper shades. Launching a product too early and forcing an already under-represented chunk of your consumer base to wait, nay, beg for a shade option is ridiculous. Creator Dany Sanz has been in the industry for decades, the brand is sold in numerous countries, and the Makeup Forever HD foundation range is decently broad. There's no excuse. Just wait a few months and release the product when more of the population is represented.

I like the feel and packaging of this concealer, but my praise stops there. As an underye corrector, it's far below standards, and it doesn't function as a blemish concealer, either. Unless you have the most barely-there undereye circles known to mankind and you're on the light shade of the skintone spectrum and you don't have fine lines under or around your eyes, give this one a pass.

RATING: 1 out of 5

This product is available at Sephora.com.

REVIEW: Glossier Phase 2

Wearing the Perfecting Skin Tint and Stretch Concealer in Light and Generation G Lipstick in Like; skin prepped with Soothing Face Mist before application.

I was more than a little skeptical of Glossier.com when their brand first launched, and I admit that I remained unimpressed for some time after the first wave of products was released. Boy Brow was very meh on me, Balm Dot Com dried my mouth out and felt heavy on my skin, and the ingredients list for the two masks terrified me. But the slick marketing pulled me in again, and I decided to test out the Perfecting Skin Tint. Lucky for me, that tint has become a staple in my collection. So when Glossier launched two new makeup items--the Stretch Concealer and the Generation G Lipstick--in a new "Phase 2" set, I decided to give them a shot.

The Phase 2 set comes with a pot of the Stretch Concealer, a tube of Generation G lipstick, and a tube of Boy Brow, all in the shade of your choice. Each item is $18 individually while the full Phase 2 set is $50; unlike the Phase 1 set, you save a few dollars by buying the kit. (ETA: I accidentally fibbed--Boy Brow is currently $16, so you're only saving $2 when you buy the kit.) I already reviewed Boy Brow in a previous post, however, so I passed on the set. Instead, I bought the concealer in 10 Light and the lipsticks in Like and Jam.

Generation G Lipsticks

Jam normally applies even smoother. I just hadn't exfoliated my lips for a while before I took this picture. Sorry. :(

Glossier claims they're going for a "soft, popsicle-stain flush" with this product, and they outright state that "no lipstick in the history of lipsticks looks like this." It's meant to have the pigmentation and comfort of a tinted balm with the look of a stain. And man, does that sound gorgeous!

It's true that the Generation G lipsticks have a flushed, stain-like look on the lips, and that's kind of cool. But saying they wear like a tinted balm and suggesting "no lipstick in the history of lipsticks looks like this"? Eh, you're pushing it. Tinted balms don't generally hydrate my lips, but good ones are practically imperceptible and non-drying. Generation G lipsticks are weightless when your lips are parted, every-so-slightly sticky when you press them together, and a tad bit drying. I find myself wanting some balm on top after a couple of hours, though I can manage without it. They can also apply a tad patchy or uneven if you try to swipe on just one layer; I found that my best bet for even color payoff was slathering the lipstick all around my recently exfoliated mouth a few times.

With that said, these lipsticks do have a very pretty effect on the lips without being as fiddly as most traditional liquid stains. They're vaguely soft-focus and fit with Glossier's "sheer, easy, and full o' silicone slip" standards. It might sound weird, but they kind of "veil" the lips: even when I wear Jam at full opacity, my lips still look like lips, not like they've been painted on my face. (Not that that's a bad thing--I often love a lipstick that looks like car lacquer.) This sheer stain effect means that, while these have totally average wear, they fade evenly. There's also a video of a Glossier employee applying some of the Generation G in Jam to her cheeks, and yes, this is a lipstick formula that works well for that due to the slip

This finish means that all four shades look pretty good on most skintones...and because the folks at Glossier are no dummies when it comes to marketing, they've proven it on their product page. Could we please have an option to zoom in on those shade photos, though? Some of us have shitty vision.

Also, I'm generally cool with Glossier's minimal plastic packaging, but the Generation G lipstick is the first product in the range to make me think, "That looks cheap." The white plastic tubes lack any heft and the plastic appears thin. In fact, the lipstick even has a vague plastic taste. It won't weigh down your bag or take up a ton of room in your lipstick holder, but overall, I'm just not wowed by the packaging.

Still, this is an nice natural matte lipstick for people who love that smooth finish and easy application. They're great for work or lazy weekends. I'll likely toss a tube of Cake (the peach shade) in to my next order.

PS: I noticed that the actual Generation G lipstick tubes say "0.04 oz," but the Glossier website said 1.13oz when I first copied the information from the website. The error has since been corrected. For comparison, a $32 NARS Audacious lipstick contains 0.14oz of product and an $8 Flower Beauty lipstick contains 0.12oz of product. The Generation G lipsticks are definitely on the small side.

RATING: 4 out of 5

Stretch Concealer

Direct sunlight on top, indirect sunlight in middle, flash on bottom. From left to right: Glossier Stretch Concealer and Perfecting Skin Tint in 10 Light, Urban Decay Naked Skin Concealer in Fair Neutral, and OCC Tinted Moisturizer in Y0.

While the Perfecting Skin Tint is a smidgen dark for me in swatches, it applies a bit lighter when sheered out, and I can get away with it because it's so sheer. The Stretch Concealer looked darker to me in the pot and clearly had more coverage, so I was a bit nervous. But I noticed that, in the few Phase 2 Set videos that popped up around the release date, a lot of people were using a lighter shade in the concealer. (For instance: people who used the Skin Tint in Dark, the third shade, used the concealer in Medium, the second shade.) This gave me hope.

The hope was a little misguided, though, because yes, it matches my face and not the rest of my body. I can still get away with it if I'm wearing something sheerer/darker like the Perfecting Skin Tint, slash, if I'm only using it under my eyes, but the shade is a stark contrast to my paler, more yellow foundations. People my skintone can get away with the Perfecting Skin Tone in Light, but the Stretch Concealer in Light is a better fit for NW15 folks.

 Regardless, I still tested this bad boy out on both my undereyes and my super-persistent cheek zit. (Lovingly, I have named this zit Fernando.) The formula contains cocoa butter, so it's slightly dewy and very emollient; this made it a truly awesome light coverage undereye concealer. As the ad copy suggests, it looks like skin, not makeup. It blends best with the warmth of your fingers, though you can also dab the product on with a brush. I think this would be an excellent choice for my great skin days when I just want to look a little brighter on my undereye area.

I was not at all impressed with how this covered Fernando, though. It looked dry and a little patchy over the blemish, and despite Glossier's claims that the coverage is buildable, I couldn't get more than a slight softening effect. I think this is because it has that emollient formula: if you try to layer more on, it's just going to slip around. As you can see in the photographs, Fernando and my little chin pimple scar are less noticeable with the concealer on, but they're definitely still there.

The staying power of this product is also so-so, though again, this is to be expected from a very creamy and dewy formula. I found that I had to reapply the product to my undereyes and my blemishes after around 4 or 5 hours on a comfortable spring day. Applying powder on top did give me a more matte finish, but it didn't increase the wear time.

The Stretch Concealer is excellent for the undereyes, not so great for blemishes. It's not as buildable as they claim, but it's very workable on normal to dry skin, which is a plus. Hence, it's a decent concealer, not a fantastic one. I will note, however, that the price is fair: you get a standard 0.17oz of product for $18.

RATING: 3 out of 5

If you're interested in purchasing this product (or any others) from Glossier, feel free to use my affiliate link in this post--everybody with an account gets one, so this isn't a paid post, I swear. You'll get 20% off your order, I'll get $10 in credit. If that's not your thang, just go to Glossier.com to get your products, no affiliation required.

Affiliate Link: Glossier

REVIEW: Milk Makeup

Milk Makeup first appeared on Sephora's website last month, apparating like a fun and funky makeup genie from a bottle. The brand caught my eye immediately with its minimalist packaging and promises of unique, easy-to-use products for on-the-go hipsters. Because as much as I enjoy spending a lazy weekend hour applying my makeup, I am always pressed for time when I wake up 20 minutes late on a work day and need to get myself together before I hit the bus stop.

I was interested in a lot of the Milk Makeup range, but I decided to start with products that might fill gaps in my collection (and were available at the time, since they seem to be rolling the line out over the course of the spring season). I grabbed the Coverage Duo in Fair, the Weekend Lash Stain in 8-Ball, and the Gel Brow pencil in Pilsner.

Let's start with the Coverage Duo, because I wasn't actually able to wear it: my skin responded badly during patch testing. Milk promotes this product as a multipurpose base product, with 0.33 ounces of liquid concealer and 0.08 ounces of cream concealer, housed in super-portable packaging. Now, they call it a liquid concealer, but if you watch their tutorial videos, the models who use this product often apply it in a thin layer over most of their face like a foundation. And the idea of a grab-and-go concealer and foundation drew me in.

But when you think about it, this is rather pricey. Most foundations are a full fluid ounce, while you get a third of an ounce in the Milk Makeup Coverage Duo. (Again, they promote it as a concealer, but it behaves as, and is demoed like, a foundation.) The cream concealer is also super tiny, especially compared to my NARS Radiant Creamy Concealer (0.22 ounces) and my Urban Decay Naked Skin concealer (0.16 ounces). I put a dime on the cream concealer and placed the pod next to a Becca Beach Tint for a visual size comparison.

So yes, it's very portable and small, and it'd easily fit in your purse. But if you break it down to dollars-and-ounces, you're definitely paying for the cutesy packaging and portability.

Here's the Coverage Duo swatched up against the OCC Tinted Moisturizer in Y0, Glossier Perfecting Skin Tint in Light, and Buxom Show Some Skin in Tickle the Ivory. This is too dark for me by about a shade, but it's also very very very pink. I'd peg it at about NW15. So even if I had gotten past the patch testing phase, this product would not have worked on my skin tone.

Despite the fact that I couldn't give these concealers a full test run, I was able to feel the texture and get an idea of the coverage and performance. The liquid concealer is incredibly thin and provides light coverage; it's also easy to blend in to the skin. The cream concealer has an interesting and pleasant texture, kind of like a marshmallow that turns to liquid under your fingers (no, really!). It provides medium coverage. Both feel very emollient, though the liquid stays a little dewy on my skin and the cream dries down to a satin finish.

I also wanted to talk about this liquid concealer applicator for a moment. The Milk Makeup line seems to be quite fond of these rollerball applicators, probably because the idea is that you can just swipe the product where it's needed, smear it out with your fingers, and go. In theory, it's a nice idea, but I have three major problems with it:

1. It's messy. As soon as you start rolling the liquid concealer, you're going to get product all over the packaging, and it can actually smear in to the cap.
2. Sometimes the rollerball puts out a ton of product, and other times you have to roll it for almost a minute to get the liquid out.
3. This isn't very sanitary if you're using it the way it's advertised--the only way you can really clean the rollerball is to rub it on a makeup wipe, and then you're wasting some of the concealer in the process.

Next up is the Weekend Lash Stain in 8-Ball, a jet black mascara that's designed to give you a natural look while lasting for days at a time. This is the product I was the most excited about, because while I don't sleep in my makeup (guys, please don't do that), I do sometimes work for 12+ hours or run around in 95 degree, 85% humidity weather, and a long-wearing, not-makeup-y mascara would be a homerun for me. I'm also a huge fan of mascaras in squeeze tube packaging because it makes it easier to manipulate the product and get every last drop out of there.

Unfortunately, this mascara did not wow me. As soon as you pull the thin, slightly-slanted wand out of the tube, you'll notice it is absolutely dripping with mascara. Wipe it off on the rim of the mascara tube and you'll make a mess; wipe it off on a tissue and you'll be getting rid of half of your mascara.

Even after dabbing off the wand, this product is a nightmare to apply. The formula is so, so liquidy that it clumps your lashes together and smears all over your eyelid. I had to use a lash comb immediately after applying to separate my lashes, scrub my lids with my ELF Makeup Remover Pen, and make sure I applied eyeshadow after mascara so it didn't get ruined. I'm completely baffled by a product range that claims to be low-maintenance, then puts out a mascara that's this much work.

To be fair, you don't have to fuss with this much after it's actually on your eyes. It lengthens a bit and looks very black, but is overall quite natural, which is what a lash stain should be. It doesn't smear or flake throughout the day, and as long as you use an oil-based makeup remover, getting it off of your face isn't that hard. But quite frankly, I don't think the 10 minutes of faffing around is worth it when I can get similar results from a quick coat of Maybelline Full n' Soft. I'm still not sure if I want to keep this product or not, but I'm leaning towards "return."

Natural light on top, flash on the bottom.

The product I expected to feel the most "meh" about, the Gel Brow pencil, actually ended up being my favorite of the bunch. I got the middle shade, Pilsner, which is a dead-on-balls accurate color dupe for the Anastasia Beverly Hills Brow Wiz in Medium Brown. (The Shu Uemura Hard Formula pencil in Seal Brown applies a bit lighter to my brows than the other two, but it swatches really red/purple on my hand...I need to just give up swatching that pencil, cause it never works.) There's also a taupe blonde shade called Pale Ale and a darker brown called Dark Brew. I love that the shades are named after beer, but I wish they had a good option for redheads.

The spoolie on the end of the pencil is very serviceable, though not the softest of the bunch, and the lids don't snap on quite as tightly as I'd like. Beyond that, I'm loving this pencil. It definitely has a gel-like texture that smooths over the brows easily without looking flaky or chalky. I can get my brows done in a minute with this pencil because it's so pigmented and soft: brush brow, apply pencil in soft strokes, brush again, repeat process on other brow. The one caveat is that the soft formulation makes it impossible to draw on individual brow hairs, so if that super duper natural brow look is your game, I don't think this product will work for you; it's always going to apply like a "smear" of color. A nice smear! ...but still a smear.

In the above photos, I'm wearing the Gel Brow pencil and the Weekend Lash Stain on the left and am bare-eyed (man, that sounds funny to me) on the right side. I think the done-up brow looks faboosh: emphasized, strong, and appropriately ashy-colored without looking very fake or drawn-on. The stained lashes are definitely black and noticeable, but the amount of work I had to do to get them that way was not entirely worth it.

Milk likes to promote their products as "high concept and low maintenance," designed for cool, young urban people on the go. But "high concept" doesn't necessarily mean "smart concept." It's fine to have some gimmicks, like fun video tutorials and a quirky little paper that can blot your t-zone and roll your weed, but you can't rest on those laurels--at the end of the day, products need to work.

Dear Milk Makeup: if you start focusing more on products that really are fast and functional, and less on products that just look neat in pictures, let me know. I'll give them another shot.

RATING -- GEL BROW: 4 out of 5

RATING -- WEEKEND LASH STAIN: 2 out of 5

RATING -- COVERAGE DUO: ???

Milk Makeup is available at MilkMakeup.com and Sephora.com.