The duochromes always get me: Review of L'Oréal Infallible Galaxy Lumiere Holographic Eyeshadows in Crescent Moon, Full Moon, and Moon Kissed

Affiliate Links

Two duochrome posts in a row? Is that allowed? (As usual, we ignore the word "holographic" when it's in the name of a makeup product.) I love duochromes, and they make me pay more for drugstore eyeshadows than I normally would. More for eyeshadow singles in general (though there was that time I paid full price for Urban Decay X, and I don't even really like it). These (deep breath) L'Oréal Infallible Galaxy Lumiere Holographic Eyeshadows are $13 a piece, so I suggest waiting for a sale, which will always come sooner or later for drugstore makeup. I had a B2GO Free deal from, but if I hadn't also had Ulta points from my credit card to spend, I might have balked even at that.

None of that is to say that I don't think these eyeshadows are amazing and totally worth picking up if you are a duochrome fiend like I am. They're absolutely lovely.

The formula of these eyeshadows is interesting. Though they have the "Infallible" name attached to them, they're not the same as the regular Infallible singles (reviewed here), which come with little plates on top to keep them densely packed. These Galaxy shadows have a more spongey texture--not as squishy as Colourpop Super Shock eyeshadows, but if you press your finger into the pan, you can feel it compress a bit. I dropped Full Moon on the floor and, instead of shattering, the whole shadow came loose in one piece inside the pan. I was able to press it back in place with a finger. Like the L'Oréal Infallible eyeshadows and the Colourpop Super Shock shadows, these apply best with a finger. With a brush they go on very sheer and a little patchy.

How about I let my many, many photos do the talking? My swatches were made with a brush without primer. Each one is several layers, because these shadows are sheer, and in swatch form they don't show up clearly in a single layer.

Left to right: Crescent Moon (sheer beige with green shift), Full Moon (white gold), and Moon Kissed (purple with blue shift).

The cheapest metallic thrills: Wet N Wild Silk Finish Lipsticks in Dark Pink Frost and Fuchsia with Blue Pearl

Affiliate Links

Auxiliary Beauty has created a very useful taxonomy flowchart of lipstick finishes, which I think is totally accurate. According to that chart, these two lipsticks are neither metallic, as I'm calling them, nor frosts, as Wet N Wild calls (one of) them. They are probably best classified somewhere in the duochrome or shimmer/pearl families. And yet everything is apparently metallic these days, so I've lazily labelled these things that way too, because I think they serve as cheap dupes or alternatives for the various "metallic" lipsticks that are popping up left and right lately. Whatever you want to call them, they're are good starters for people venturing into reflective lip territory (as well as for those of us who are already pretty comfortable there).

Wet N Wild's Silk Finish Lipsticks are about the cheapest lipsticks you're going to get at 99 cents, and they're really no frills. The packaging is basic (though better designed than the slightly more expensive Wet N Wild MegaLast tubes). Even the names of most of them are simply descriptive. I'm guessing they date back to when these lipsticks were first released, which must be at least 25 years ago, though I haven't been able to find out their history. Even if Dark Pink Frost doesn't seem entirely accurate (it's neither dark nor a frost?), it'll certainly tell you more about what you're getting than the names of the new shades added to the line a few years ago, like What's Up Doc?.

There's definitely some variation in the quality and finish of the lipsticks in this line. I used to have Nouveau Pink, which was a bubblegum pink cream, and it applied and wore wonderfully. In contrast, What's Up Doc? (reviewed here), another cream, was a streaky, slippery mess (but makes a great cream blush!). Both of these shimmers are gorgeous, but Dark Pink Frost is much sheerer than Fuchsia with Blue Pearl. They both have an average wear time--they're not going to last all day, but you're also not going to look in a mirror an hour after applying them to find a mess. Fuchsia with Blue Pearl in particular leaves a pretty even stain behind.

It's a bit difficult to capture the blue in FWBP in a photo, but it's definitely there. And you can see that DPF has some more sparkly shimmer, while FWBP has that smooth pearly finish. But since neither of them reflects back icy or silvery, I don't think they're truly frosty. Each of the swatches below is a few swipes, since, as I said, neither is completely opaque.

So you can see where their subtle duochrome identity comes in. DPF is pink with gold shimmer, or rose gold, and FWBP is, well, fuchsia with blue pearl.

On my lips, DPF does emphasize lines a bit, but that doesn't bother me. Lips normally have lines in them, regardless of age. Think of it the other way around: the texture of my lips enhances the shimmer. It's a warm, rosy pink that keeps it from veering into scarily frosty territory, and it's easy to wear with whatever else I have going on.

FWBP is bolder, for sure, but the blue is subtle enough that if you can pull off a bright pink in general, this isn't going to look costumey or bizarre. It's not perfectly opaque, but it's pigmented enough that you can get good coverage in one layer. Both of these lipsticks are non-drying and maybe even a little moisturizing. Both of the disguise dry flakiness in my lips rather than exaggerating it.

I think these are both, in fact, totally 80s lipsticks while at the same time being totally current. I mean, Too Faced could easily feed us some unicorn-fairy bullshit to sell these colors. Overall, the Wet N Wild Silk Finish lipsticks are decent products with some interesting colors in the line. I think these two stand on their own as just plain good lipsticks, but the $1 price also makes them an excellent choice for trying out colors and finishes you might not be sure will work for you.

I've only tried the four Silk Finish lipsticks mentioned here. Are there any others you've used that you'd recommend?

Shadow Swatches: Miscellaneous Eyeshadow Singles and Quads from Stila, L'Oréal, Tom Ford, Butter London, Revlon, and Urban Decay

Affiliate Links

I didn't buy anything during the Sephora sale, did you? 20% off just isn't very exciting for me. I mean maybe if there was something I was definitely planning to buy anyway, it would be better to get 20% off than no discount at all, but there wasn't. Plus I have a bunch of Ulta points to use on frivolous shit.

Instead of shopping, lately, I've been playing with what I already have, including these eyeshadows which I realized I'd (mostly) never written about on my blog. Rather than doing a full review of them, I thought I'd just take some swatch photos and say a little about what I like or don't like about each. Not all of them are currently available, but I hope you enjoy the pretty pictures anyway.

The swatches below were made with a brush over primer (Black Radiance eyeshadow primer, reviewed here). If this were a proper review, I would have swatched them with and without primer for your information, but I just really wanted to show you the color and finish clearly. You can still tell which ones are shitty even over primer, anyway.

Oh, and I took way too many photos, which probably all look the same, so here's a cut.

Too Precise? Review of Maybelline Master Precise Metallic Liquid Liner in Galactic Metal

Affiliate Links

I have to say that I am really into the metallic shit we're seeing all over the place this year. I like shiny things. (Mind you, there's a lot of stuff out there labeled metallic that isn't metallic, but that's a rant for another day.)

I picked up this Maybelline Master Precise Metallic Liquid Liner recently in part because it's shiny, but also because the design of the packaging seemed similar to my long time favorite liquid liner, L'Oréal Lineur Intense Felt Tip. Since the latter seems to be gradually disappearing, it would be nice to have a similar option that's less expensive. (Lancôme offers the same thing, but it's obviously much more expensive.) The main appeals of this style of eyeliner are (1) felt tip, not brush tip, and (2) the lid is longer than the wand--meaning that you can grip the handle down near the tip for better control, rather than several inches higher like this. That control is vital!

Though there are several flashier colors of these metallic liners (teal! gold!), I know from experience that I rarely wear any eyeliner that isn't black or brown, and I already have a whole collection of eyeliner pencils in other colors in case I really need to go there. So I gambled on the shade Galactic Metal. Since I was ordering online, and the name isn't very descriptive, I expected a sort of dark gunmetal. That's more or less what it is, though when you look closely it's more of a black base with silvery iridescent shimmer. Look at all the colors in this macro shot:

As for how this eyeliner performs, I'm quite happy with it. It's much better than the disastrous L'Oréal Carbon Black I tried a few months ago. "Master Precise" is a good name, in fact, both because of that long lid I mentioned that offers control, but also because the tip is super-mega-pointy.

In fact, it was a bit too pointy for me. I had a hard time not stabbing the inner corner of my eye where I start my line, and I also like to dot liquid liner between my lashes to fill in the gaps (i.e. tightline). This tip was so sharp that trying to do that was torture.

No problem, though. I just took a pair of (clean) nail scissors and snipped about a millimeter off of the tip. Now it's perfect for me. Maybe I can't get the end of my wing down to a micron, but that's not the kind of thing that's visible outside of a close-up photo anyway.

Here are some swatches in different types of lighting that I drew on the back of my hand before trimming the tip. You can get an idea of the shimmer and of just how thin a line you can draw with this eyeliner if you are so inclined.

On your actual eyelid, Galactic Metal is going to read mostly as black, but with enough shimmer to make it interesting. I found it easy to apply in a smooth, opaque line. When you go back over the line, the original liner doesn't get picked up, as can happen with some products. You can keep drawing over it to get what you need.

I applied the liner above after trimming the tip, so you can see that I probably could have got a thinner line at the inner corner if I hadn't done that (but, like I said, the stabbing!). I'm sure I could have made it thinner after trimming too, if I cared to, but that's not the kind of detail that is visible in person--certainly not behind my glasses. (Any flakes you see here are from my Maybelline mascara, briefly reviewed here, not from the eyeliner.)

This is the kind of formula that dries to a sort of plasticky film that you can almost peel off at the end of the day. It comes off in big chunks when you remove it. The advantage is that I've found it to be both water and oil resistant, which is unusual--often oil easily melts a waterproof formula and vice versa.

Here it is about 7 hours later (in worse indoor lighting). Not perfect, I guess, but in pretty damned great shape. My concealer, on the other hand, did not survive as well.

All in all, I'm quite pleased with this eyeliner and have no reservations about recommending it. It gives me a fun (shiny!!) option for my everyday makeup.

I'm curious now about the colors I didn't buy. Is it possible that the gold, for instance, could be as opaque and easy to use as this one? It's not uncommon for performance to vary by shade (again I remind you of my awful L'Oréal Carbon Black experience). Has anyone tried the other colors in this line? I'm not sure they're in stores yet--you might have to get them on Amazon or Ulta, like the corresponding metallic lipsticks. (I keep stalking the Ulta website to see if the lipstick is in stock in my local stores, because I bought the wrong color online and want to exchange it, but so far no luck.)

Can I Wear Brown Lipstick?

Affiliate Links

L.A. Girl Matte Lipstick in Snuggle, NudeStix Magnetic Matte in Greystone, and Maybelline ColorSensational Maple Kiss

We've been in the midst of a 90s retro revival (sometimes 70s-via-90s) in fashion and beauty for a few years now, for better or for worse. The rule I've heard a lot about wearing throwback trends is that if you wore it the first time around, you shouldn't wear it when it comes back. That rings pretty true to me, I suppose, but then that's probably because the things I wore as a teenager aren't exactly coming back as styles that suit suit my 35-year-old self. Not that I am advocating some amorphous age-appropriateness rule here. I'm just saying that the things I wore as a teenager are not things that I want to wear as an adult. If you'd like to borrow my wide-leg carpenter khakis or my gold cross chokers or my white eyeliner, they are probably still stored away somewhere in my parents' attic. I think, however, that if you follow that trend rule too strictly, you can end up stuck in a rut because you avoid updating your look at all for fear of looking ridiculous. I'm trying to find my place in the space between.

So while not long ago the thought of reviving trends from my high school years would have brought to mind this, of which I long ago cycled past acceptance and into rejection:

I just watched Buffy again earlier this year, and her makeup is usually much better than this.

I'm now used to seeing similar colors and textures made modern and fresh and appealing. (I'm also super into the shimmery and metallic lipsticks we're getting after years of matte everything--more on that another time!) I used to think that I just can't do brown lipsticks (witness my lack of success with the Bite Beauty Multisticks). Part of the problem is that brown lipsticks, perhaps more than most colors other than red, are finnicky, and you might have to try a whole bunch of options before you find the one that's right for you. When I decided to try the whole brown lipstick thing again, I remembered that I had one stuck in a reject drawer: Maybelline Maple Kiss. Hooray for hoarding! When I tried on Maple Kiss again (see below), my first thought was, "Wow, this actually looks great!" My second thought was, "Wait, am I just being brainwashed by trends?" But on further reflection, I don't think that's exactly what's happening. In 2014, you would be hard pressed to find warm brown lipsticks being presented in an updated, attractive way. In 2017, those images are everywhere.

If you've watched TV in the last six months or so, you've seen this. For example, Jess from New Girl, who typically wore reddish or rosy lipsticks in the past shifted to a more orangey-brown family in the last season.

Peach? Sienna? Terracotta? Clay? Whatever.

The more exposure we have to new things presented in aesthetically pleasing ways, the more we can come to appreciate them as beautiful. (If you are trying to work on body acceptance, it can work in a similar way. The more beautiful images of bodies of all shapes and sizes you're exposed to, the more you'll train yourself to find them attractive--or you'll suddenly realize it's happened without any effort.)

Brown has been happening for a while, but I largely avoided the corpsey greige lips of the last few years, while admiring them, because they felt like too much of a high-maintenance statement look for my preferences. I have a handful of brownish lipsticks at this point, but I'm looking at three of them here that represent different takes on the latest version of the look, which I think are both current and easily wearable. This is my personal test of whether or not I want to wear brown lipstick (spoiler: yes), and if so, what version I like best.

Swatches of L.A. Girl Matte Lipstick in Snuggle, NudeStix Magnetic Matte in Greystone, and Maybelline ColorSensational Maple Kiss

The three lipsticks pictured above fall into three categories: brownish nude, true brown, and warm/terracotta brown.

Drugstore Classics: L'Oréal Telescopic Mascara in Carbon Black

Affiliate Links

I've said before that my favorite mascaras are from Covergirl, especially their LashBlast Volume. Yet I constantly feel the urge to stray and find out what else is out there. My latest dalliance is with this L'Oréal mascara that was recommended to me by a friend with gorgeous eyelashes. Note to self: be cautious about taking future mascara suggestions from people with impressive eyelashes, because maybe they're born with it, and maybe it's not Maybelline or L'Oréal or Revlon.

You'd think after my last encounter with a L'Oréal product called Carbon Black, I'd stay away, but no. It turns out that, despite the tube being made out of the same horrible, slippery plastic as the liquid eyeliner, this mascara is not nearly as disappointing.

I have no idea why the tube looks metallic here. It's not.

The L'Oréal Telescopic Mascara brush is very, very thin, with tiny, spiky bristles. According to the marketing, it's mainly supposed to provide length and definition, and that seems about right. Because the bristles are so short and there are wide spaces between the rows, it deposits a lot of product without combing through the lashes very much. So while there is length and definition, I definitely don't get a full, fluttery effect with each of my eyelashes separated.

Here are my invisible lashes with no mascara:

Here they are with two coats of Carbon Black:

You can see that they are pretty spiky and not very lush. Usually when I first apply this mascara in the morning, I don't like it much, but when I look in the mirror a few hours later, I appreciate it more. It doesn't change during the day--I think it just looks better from a distance. Judging from my friend who recommended it, it works a bit better on naturally full eyelashes, I assume since in my case there are only 14 lashes for it to clump together. As for the whole Carbon Black business, is that supposed to blacker than other black mascaras? I mean it's quite black, but nothing special.

The thing I dislike most about this mascara is how long it takes to dry. I've had the tube open for a couple of weeks now, so it's not just that it's too fresh and wet. I always have to clean a few specks and smudges from around my eyes when I put it on. One day I sneezed five full minutes after I applied the mascara, and I had to completely redo my concealer. I don't have the patience for that.

I don't mind using L'Oréal Telescopic Mascara in Carbon Black for the time being, but I won't buy it again. It's just not suited to my eyelashes, and the long drying time is a pain.

Anyone else use this mascara? I know it's a real favorite for some people. I'd be curious to hear how it works for you.

Drugstore Liquid Eyeliner Review Showdown: L'Oréal Lineur Intense Felt Tip Liquid Eyeliner in Carbon Black vs. Physician's Formula Eye Booster 2-in-1 Lash Boosting Eyeliner + Serum in Ultra Black

Affiliate Links

I've recently tried two black liquid eyeliners in an attempt to replace the Stila liner (reviewed here) that ended up getting so frayed it's now unusable. Normally I don't like to have two products open at the same time that perform essentially the same function (much less three), but I disliked the first replacement liner I tried so much that I bought another. So here's a spoiler: the winner of the showdown is Liner #2, the absurdly named Physician's Formula Eye Booster 2-in-1 Lash Boosting Eyeliner + Serum in Ultra Black.  I'm going to review the drugstore eyeliner that I do not recommend first (L'Oréal Lineur Intense Felt Tip Liquid Eyeliner in Carbon Black), and the much more impressive PF Lash Booster (hereafter) second.

First, let's look at swatches of both of them, with Stila's eyeliner as a comparison. On the left, I drew a single line to show the initial opacity and thinness of the point, and then I went back over the same swatch several time to show what happens when you add multiple layers.

Left to right: PF Lash Booster in Ultra Black, L'Oréal Lineur Intense in Carbon Black, and Stila Stay All Day Liquid Liner in Intense Black.

The Stila liner is more completely black on the first swipe than either of the other two and also has more sheen. Because of its frayed tip, that's as fine a line as I can get (and it's impossible to use on my eyelid, because there are fibers pointing in all directions). The PF Lash Booster is a close second, but you can see in the sheerer areas at the edges of the swatches that it's a warmer black than the Stila. It's also more matte, which can make it look darker on the eyelid. When you swatch all three of these eyeliners next to one another, the L'Oréal swatch in the middle looks almost brown. It's also much sheerer, even on the right where I tried to build it up.

Do I Need This? Mascara Primer (Wet N Wild PhotoFocus Lash Primer vs. Lancôme Cils Booster XL Mascara Base vs. Benefit They're Real Tinted Lash Primer)

Affiliate Links

Welcome to the latest installment of my Do I Need This? series. In these posts, I offer my experience and opinions about whether or not I think a product or technique is worth it. Obviously, you don't really need ANY beauty products, so the answer to the question is always going to be no, to some extent. But is it going to change your life (or face)? Is it going to make things easier? Are you going to notice any difference at all? That's what I'm getting at. You may disagree with my verdict, because we all have different bodies/faces/brains/desires, but I'll try to offer a starting point, at least.

I wrote a while ago about how it seems like we're supposed to "prime" our whole bodies these days, and it's getting a bit ridiculous. Nevertheless, eyeshadow primer kind of changed my life. Or at least how I wear eyeshadow. Mascara primer is another one that's been around for ages, at least in more expensive brands, but it's popping up more at the drugstore now as our need to prime proliferates. Over the years I've got countless mini tubes of mascara primer from brands like Dior and Lancôme as various gifts-with-purchase, and I've used them, but I was never really sure that they did much. So I figured I'd do a quasi-scientific test of a few lash primers to see if they actually make difference.

Do you need mascara primer?

Short answer: No, just use an extra coat of mascara.

My Cheap Favorites: Revlon Super Lustrous Lipsticks in Cherries in the Snow, Berry Haute, and Fire and Ice

Affiliate Links

Revlon Super Lustrous Lipsticks are hardly new--in fact, they are probably one of the oldest products still going strong at the drugstore--but I only got my first one (Cherries in the Snow) less than a year ago. It hasn't taken long for them to reach favorite status, unlike most of my other favorites, which I've been using for several years. Honestly, if these had been the first lipsticks I'd tried, I might have been one of those people who was really into lipstick from the beginning of their makeup-using lives, rather than being frustrated with it most of the time. They're really comfortable and easy to use--at least the three shades I have now: Cherries in the Snow, Berry Haute, and Fire and Ice. Most lipstick formulas either dry out my lips or, at best, don't help my already dry lips any. These actually seem to moisturize them a bit! That's very rare in my experience.

Revlon Super Lustrous Lipsticks come in four finishes: crème, matte, pearl, and sheer. These three shades are all crèmes, so I can't say how the other finishes perform. They're all very pigmented in a single coat and not prone to smearing. To me, the formulas they're most similar to are the Urban Decay Vice cream lipsticks and the Bite Amuse Bouches (reviewed here). The latter are more pigmented (at least the shades I've tried), so you can get full opacity in a thin layer, but they feel about the same. They're as good or better than most higher end lipsticks I've used. I even like that old-fashioned gold and black tube, and the window on the top of the lid is useful.

And they are very cheap! The lowest price I've found for them is $4.99 at Target and Meijer. At CVS in my area they are $8.99, so the range is pretty fucking wide (and that motivated me to write about sales and price discrepancies). (If you have the right combination of coupons you might get it for the same price at CVS.) On Amazon, the prices vary depending on the shade from $4.99 to $16.12 (random!). (Remember when people used to call everything random? It was the "literally" of the early 2000s.)

Anyway, I really, really recommend at least these three shades from Revlon, even though none of them turned out to look exactly the way I expected on my face, as I'll explain.

First, Cherries in the Snow, which in a lot of online photos looks like a pink-red (i.e. a red lipstick with some pink in it). On me, it's definitely pink. Very little red. But flattering, I think!

Two Tinted Moisturizers: TheBalm Balm Shelter in Lighter than Light and Maybelline Dream Pure BB in Light

Disclosure: Affiliate links.

Base products aren't one of my favorite things to review, because they aren't one of my favorite things to use. In fact, I never used to wear foundation at all, because I found it too much trouble to bother with. I had a bottle of L'Oreal True Match foundation that must have sat in a drawer for at least 5 years before I threw it out in about 2007. I was holding on to it in case I needed it for a special occasion, but even on special occasions I didn't use it.

Once I started to look for a base that I actually liked a few years ago, however, I got hooked on the hunt. But I still tend to put off reviewing them, partly because I am fully aware that my expectations are unreasonable. I want something that looks exactly like my real skin so that it's undetectable, and yet makes my skin look flawless, and also doesn't fade until I take it off. That's not a thing. I will settle for a product that is a good color match, makes my skin look better than it does with nothing on it, isn't too fussy to apply, doesn't wear off or break down immediately, and doesn't create an ugly mess when it does break down. That's still a tall order, apparently.

The other reason that I don't love reviewing foundations and such is that I find them hard to photograph in a helpful way. In a close-up, all base products look either too cakey or too sheer or both. Flakes and pores are visible in a way they aren't in person. In a full shot of my entire face, on the other hand, just about anything looks decent. For instance, in this photo I'm wearing Revlon Colorstay, which on me looked really thick and cakey and unnatural . . . and it looks pretty ok here. So it's hard to illustrate what I actually experience.

Some people can make full coverage foundations look amazing. I am not one of those people. They always end up looking mask-like and heavy on me. I'm just not a fan. So I tend to go for sheer to medium coverage in a base. Among other things, if the oil in my skin breaks down the product, it won't look as patchy and uneven as it would if it were very opaque, and so I don't have to keep checking it to see if it needs touching up. But the downside of sheerer bases is that they rarely wear very well, especially if you have oily-combination skin like mine.

I've had TheBalm's Balm Shelter Tinted Moisturizer for a little over a year. For most of that time I haven't liked it much. I'd try it, get frustrated and put it aside, and then try it again a couple of weeks or months later. When I got it out to test it again a few times before writing this review, I found that I actually liked it a lot more. I think that what happened is that my skin has been much better lately--which I attribute to lowered stress, at least up until the election, and increasing niacinamide in my skincare routine. (I've been using the Paula's Choice 10% Niacinamide Booster, but CeraVe's PM Lotion is another good source at 4% niacinimade, since the PC booster is something you mix/dilute with other products). 

The main problem I'd had with TheBalm's tinted moisturizer was that it sat weirdly on any flaky patches on my face, which in my case were usually chin zits. I actually think that calling this a tinted moisturizer isn't entirely accurate, because in my experience it's not very moisturizing at all. In addition, it has a rather matte finish, not a dewy one like I would expect from most tinted moisturizers. The combination of sheer and matte can be tricky for problem areas on my face. You can see in the photo below that the dry skin near my mouth is highlighted by this stuff, and that it doesn't cover the redness on my nose. Additional concealer is definitely needed. If, however, you're in a good skin place, it does provide light, natural-looking coverage that will even things out without drawing attention to itself. 

TheBalm Balm Shelter in Lighter than Light over bare skin, no other makeup.

Below is my face at the end of the day, about 7 hours later (in artificial lighting), and the tint is pretty much completely gone. But at least this comparison demonstrates that it did tone down redness and unevenness and mattify my skin in the first place.

I don't know where the glitter came from. I suspect Urban Decay Midnight Cowboy.

Conversely, when I started using the Maybelline Dream Pure BB this past spring, I liked it a lot, but lately I've been less impressed by it. The best part about this stuff is how easy it is to apply. You can pretty much just smear it on like you would a regular lotion and it looks absolutely fine. With most base products I prefer to apply them with my fingers using a patting motion, similar to how you're supposed to use a Beauty Blender (but using my fingers means that there's no sponge soaking up product). Then I blend the base some more using the same motion with a dry sponge. There's no need for any special technique with the Dream Pure BB, though. It also has a very natural, skin-like finish.

This stuff seems to skim over the pores a bit, though, as I said, the effect is much less apparent in person.

The Dream Pure BB is a bit sheerer than the Balm Shelter, however, and it really doesn't last. Thirty seconds of sweating and it's gone. I didn't notice that so much in the summer, oddly enough, probably because I was working from home and as a result not paying that much attention to how long my makeup lasted (because I didn't really care). But these days it's more obvious to me, because I'll check out my face in the bathroom mirror before I go into the classroom or a meeting. Even though the "Pure" version of the Maybelline BB is meant for oilier skin (as opposed to the "Fresh" version for drier skin), I think this would work better for someone with dry-to-normal skin. I don't hate it on myself, but it's a bit disappointing. 

The Pure BB has exchanged the SPF from the Fresh BB for salicylic acid. I could do without that, personally. I already have skincare products with BHA in them, and I don't like having to think about whether or not the ingredients in my makeup will interact in a bad way with my skincare. Plus, I really doubt that it has much effect in this format, though who knows. 
I could do without sunscreen in my base products too, actually. TheBalm's tinted moisturizer is SPF 18, but probably lower in practice due to the small amount of product you're likely to apply. And layering a lower SPF over a higher SPF can supposedly lower the SPF of the stronger product, which is annoying. I guess for people who aren't going to wear sunscreen, some is better than nothing, but for me, it's unnecessary.

Here's a comparison of the two products next to Nars Radiant Creamy Concealer in Chantilly, because I figured that might be a recognizable point of reference for some of you.

Swatches of TheBalm Balm Shelter in Lighter than Light, Maybelline Dream Pure BB in Light, and Nars Radiant Creamy Concealer in Chantilly.

They both look a little too peachy in the heavy swatches, but when they're sheered out, they're a good match for me. The Maybelline BB is a closer match, though, being more neutral, which counteracts redness better as well. I was a bit surprised to find a good match in a product with only five shades. Both of these products cover a relatively decent shade range (i.e. not just light-medium to medium), even though they don't provide a huge number of options.

I'm happy with the Balm Shelter for now, while my skin is cooperating. It's actually a decent value, too, if you think you can finish the whole tube. It's regularly $25 for 2.15 oz., making it about $12 per ounce. You can get it a bit cheaper on Amazon, which is where I got mine, and Overstock has a few tubes for about $12 each right now. The Maybelline BB is normally about $7-9 for 1 ounce, but also a little cheaper on Amazon. 

I'm trying not to get obsessive about finding something magically perfect that doesn't exist in real life, buuuuuuut if you have any suggestions for low maintenance base products on the sheerer side, I would love to hear them. Also, how many other people are like me and prefer to not wear foundation or another base all over their faces? I definitely don't use these things on a daily basis.

Good fortune: Wet N Wild Limited Edition Color Icon Trio in Plain to the Bone

Disclosure: Affiliate links.

You know when you see an acquaintance coming toward you across the street, so you cross to the other side of the intersection to avoid an awkward stop-and-chat? But then you realize they're crossing too and you're forced into small talk that neither of you particularly wants to engage in anyway? Just me? Well, anyway, there was a CVS on that side of the street. so I ended up wandering in, and found one lone Wet N Wild Color Icon trio in the fall display, and it was the one I wanted: Plaid to the Bone. The universe was in balance again.

I don't know how likely it is that you will be able to find these eyeshadows in your local drugstore. I think they only appeared in my CVS 1-2 weeks ago, but like I said, the display was almost picked clean. I hope you do find them, though, because they are perfect and beautiful and you know I don't often gush about things. Either way, gaze on the duochrome beauty here and be in awe.

Unlike some of the weird combinations of shadows Wet N Wild sometimes comes up with, these are really well coordinated. The duochrome is basically a combination of the other two shades, which is a cool idea. I wouldn't wear them on the places they suggest you wear them (the "Browbone" shade is too dark for that part of my eyelid), but I think it would be possible to create a look using all three together. So far I have worn the duochrome on my mobile lid and the brown in the crease, and I wore the navy/teal as a liner with a matte brown shadow.

Swatches:

These swatches were done with a brush, not over primer. The teal took a little extra work to build up, but they're all very nicely pigmented, and they work wonderfully over primer. It's interesting that in sunlight, the middle dark teal shade, which looks like a completely matte navy blue in the pan, actually has a slight sheen to it. It does look pretty much matte on my eyelids though.

Here are a couple of comparisons (again on bare skin with a brush). The duochrome from the Wet N Wild Comfort Zone palette has a similar teal shimmer, but a much redder base. The Plaid to the Bone duochrome is a neutral brown base, and the shimmer might be slightly greener. The Comfort Zone shadow is a little softer and more intense.

I also compared the teal shade to Makeup Geek's Time Travel (reviewed here). It's so interesting to me that Time Travel looks teal in the pan, but often looks navy when you use/swatch it, and the Plaid to the Bone shadow looks navy in the pan and teal when you use/swatch it. I like the Plaid to the Bone teal better.

Swatches in indirect light: Wet N Wild Comfort Zone duochrome, Wet N Wild Plaid to the Bone duochrome, Makeup Geek Time Travel and Wet N Wild Plaid to the Bone.

Swatches in direct sunlight: Wet N Wild Comfort Zone duochrome, Wet N Wild Plaid to the Bone duochrome, Makeup Geek Time Travel and Wet N Wild Plaid to the Bone

I haven't had time to take photos of these on my eyes, but I thought I might as well post swatches and review details sooner rather than later, since this won't be around for long. I'm not usually someone who goes after "limited edition" shit, and I wouldn't have made a special effort to hunt this down, but I'm very pleased that I happened upon it. It really is great. I think Wet N Wild should seriously consider making it permanent. It's much more interesting and useable than some of their other Color Icon Trios.

If you really want it and can't find it in a store, some intrepid entrepreneurs resellers gougers have snatched some of these up and are selling them for $8+ on Ebay and Amazon. Otherwise, happy hunting! An excellent duochrome for under $4 is truly a blessing unto all who find it.

What's in a dupe? Revlon Matte Balm in Sultry vs. Maybelline Creamy Matte Lipstick in Touch of Spice

Disclosure: Affiliate links.

During last fall and early this winter, I kept reading recommendations for Revlon Matte Balm in Sultry from reliable sources and seeing Instagram posts of people wearing it and looking stunning. I became convinced that I needed it, despite my previously less-than-stellar experiences with two of the lipsticks in that line: Elusive (reviewed here) and Striking (reviewed here). Surely if so many sensible people liked Sultry, there must be something to it. And indeed, the performance of Sultry is vastly better than the other two matte balms, both in terms of application (not streaky) and wear (not patchy).

But when I got it home and put it on, something seemed eerily familiar. Oh shit, I bought a dupe! Why did I want this when I already had the very similar Maybelline Creamy Matte Lipstick in Touch of Spice? You can see from the swatches below that they are quite close.

They're not identical, but they fit into the same basic category. Touch of Spice (left) is a more brown/neutral with a little grey, while Sultry has some more plummy-red in it.

On my face, the difference is subtle, but one lipstick is noticeably more flattering on me than the other. The second time I wore Sultry, I had also been playing around with some subtle contouring. When I looked at my face in the bathroom mirror, it looked kind of dirty, and I thought I had messed up the contouring. But then I got to thinking about how similar my new lipstick was to Touch of Spice and decided to remove Sultry and replace it with the Maybelline lipstick to compare. All of the sudden, my contouring looked fine. I looked healthier. As it turns out, the subtle difference in the two lipsticks makes a real difference when I wear them.

Foundation dealbreakers: Review of L'Oreal True Match Lumi Healthy Luminous Makeup in W1-2 (Porcelain Ivory)

Disclosure: Affiliate links.

I know that the idea of a perfect foundation, one that blends invisibly and makes you look like you have naturally perfect skin with no makeup on it, is a fantasy. I get it. If you want full coverage or matte foundation, it's probably going to look you're wearing makeup. If you want a more natural finish, it's not going to cover everything 100%. And so forth. But I used to think that I could forgive almost anything for a natural-looking texture, and it turns out that that's not true. L'Oreal True Match Lumi Healthy Luminous Makeup does have a texture that pretty much disappears on the skin, at least when it's first applied, but there were a number of other issues for me that ended up being dealbreakers.

Swatches above are: (1) L'Oreal True Match Lumi Healthy Luminous Makeup in W1-2 (Porcelain Ivory); (2) TheBalm BalmShelter Tinted Moisturizer in Lighter than Light; (3) Maybelline SuperStay Better Skin Foundation in Porcelain (reviewed here); and (4) Sephora Collection Bright Future Gel Serum Concealer in Fondant (reviewed here).

The first problem was completely my fault. I bought the wrong shade. I swatched this foundation at a Shopper's Drug Mart in Canada almost a year ago, and W1-2 (Porcelain Ivory) looked like a perfect match, even though I am more neutral than warm (W="warm"). How, I'm not sure, since it certainly doesn't look very close in the photo above. I sent an email to myself telling me to buy this shade! There is, in fact N1-2 (Soft Ivory/Classic Ivory) in the line, but in the store it looked too dark, so I went with W1-2. W1-2 is peachy color--too peachy for me, as it turns out, though it's not a terrible match. Here is an awkward photo I took of the edge of my face to try to see how far off it was. You can use this to get a sense of the coverage and texture as well.

If you look at my jawline where I've tried to blend it on to my neck, you can probably see that it's not quite right. The best thing about this foundation is that it's very natural looking, which I think helps disguise the color mismatch to a certain extent. You can hardly see that there is anything on my skin, with one exception: it settles into fine lines, like the ones on either side of my nose and mouth, immediately after application. It doesn't settle into pores, fortunately, and the problem with the lines can be helped to some degree with powder.

The coverage is light-medium, though it can be built up a bit. You may be able to tell from the above photo that my moles and freckles are still visible but redness is evened out.

This foundation feels light on the skin, not like you're coated in something heavy, but to the touch it's like a moisturizer that hasn't absorbed completely. And won't absorb, ever. I'm not sure if that type of formula would be appealing even to people with very dry skin, though I certainly wouldn't recommend it for anyone else. My hair stuck to the sides of my face, even after powdering. It was very unpleasant. Even though it feels sticky, it doesn't transfer much, at least.

Already I wasn't very happy with the sticky sensation, but then the oil in my skin broke the foundation down very quickly. In a couple of hours of wearing this stuff, I'm shinier than I would be if I wore no makeup at all (again, even when I set it with powder). In 4-5 hours, it starts seriously fading in some areas (nose, cheeks) and getting cakey in other areas (chin, forehead). It even interferes with the wear time of my concealer somehow, so that my favorite Sephora concealer gets cakey, which usually doesn't happen. Dealbreaker.

I understand that "dewy" and "luminous" foundations are usually targeted toward dry skin, and matte ones are usually meant for oilier skin. I get that it has to do with how the formulas function. But I still don't like it. I prefer a more luminous, or at least satiny, look, and I have oily-combination skin. It's tricky--and the fact that I don't wear foundation every day only make me pickier, I think, because if I'm going to go to all the trouble of applying it, I want to really like it.

I returned this stuff and bought myself a new bottle of an old favorite foundation: Boots No7 Lift & Luminate Foundation in Cool Vanilla. It's not a perfect fantasy foundation either, because the lightest shade is too dark for me (swatched here). But I can easily fix that with a little white mixer (I use the one from Lord & Berry), and it fulfills all my other requirements about natural finish, neutral tone (not cool, despite the name), and decent wear time. I'll write a full review of it some time in the near future.

How about you? What are your foundation demands and dealbreakers? I'm also curious if you've tried this particular foundation and if it works significantly better for skin types different from mine.

My Cheap Favorites: Review and comparison of Covergirl Lashblast Volume Mascara in Black and Covergirl Lashblast Volume Waterproof Mascara in Very Black

Disclosure: Affiliate links.

Covergirl LashBlast Volume has been around for a long time, but I find that it can be hard to find reviews of products that were released before beauty blogging exploded, so I hope this is useful for someone. Plus, I said I would review it in my favorite cheap makeup post, so it's about fucking time. Even though mascara is the one product that I've used since I was about 14, and I don't really go out without it, I find it relatively difficult to review. Mascara is one of those things that seem to perform vastly differently on different people and that people have wildly different opinions about. I've said it before, but Maybelline Great Lash, which you always hear recommendations for, doesn't do shit for my eyelashes. And there are divided opinions about the stuff I'm reviewing here, Covergirl Lashblast Volume. These things make mascara reviews tricky. So, as always, I'm just going to tell you about my needs and preferences and experience with this stuff, and let you decide if it seems right for you. Rather than telling you IT'S THE BEST BUY IT NOW.

This particular mascara is especially difficult to review, because there's nothing exactly remarkable about it, despite its being one of my favorite mascaras out there. That's probably why I've put off writing a full review of it for years. The fact that there's not much to say is why I like it, I guess. It's a good, everyday mascara, that makes my lashes look thicker and longer, but doesn't do anything crazy. It also holds a curl well (both versions), by which I mean that when I brush my lashes upwards with the mascara, they stay that way, since I don't actually use an eyelash curler. From a normal viewing distance, it just looks like I have naturally decent lashes without any goop on them. This is an illusion, because in reality I have short, sparse, invisible eyelashes. It's easy to use and not messy, so it's the mascara I grab when I don't want to have to think about anything. Probably the strongest recommendation for this mascara that I can give you is the fact that, despite trying many dozens of other mascaras over the years, I have bought at least one tube of Covergirl Lashblast Volume annually for almost a decade now--and in several of those years I bought multiple tubes. I keep coming back to it. It's reliable.

I figured, to add some interest to this post, I'd compare the regular and waterproof versions, because they're not exactly the same. That's normal. It seems that most mascaras have very little in common between their regular and waterproof formulas, so if it's the formula you like, you might be disappointed if you switch from one to the other. If it's mainly the brush you're into, you'll be safer. Here's a comparison of the ingredients of these two mascaras.

Covergirl LashBlast Volume Mascara (non-waterproof):

Water, Glyceryl Stearate, Ammonium Acrylates Copolymer, Disteardimonium Hectorite, Propylene Glycol, Stearic Acid, Copernicia Cerifera (Carnauba) Wax, Triethanolamine, Acrylates Copolymer, Synthetic Wax, Polyvinyl Alcohol, Lecithin, Propylene Carbonate, Polyethylene, Oleic Acid, Alcohol Denat., Benzyl Alcohol, Glycerin, Xanthan Gum, Panthenol, Phenoxyethanol, Propylparaben, Methylparaben, Ethylparaben, Sodium Laureth Sulfate, Trisodium Edta, Simethicone, Tocopheryl Acetate, Tocopherol, Iron Oxides. may Contain: Titanium Dioxide, Ultramarines.

Covergirl LashBlast Volume Mascara Waterproof:

Petroleum Distillates, Polyethylene, Disteardimonium Hectorite, Copernicia Cerifera (Carnauba) Wax, Trihydroxystearin, Propylene Carbonate, Pentaerythrityl Hydrogenated Rosinate, Tall Oil Glycerides, Tocopheryl Acetate, Propylparaben, Panthenol, Tocopherol, Phenoxyethanol, Iron Oxides. May Contain: Titanium Dioxide, Ultramarines, Talc.

You can see these lists do, indeed, have very, very little in common. The lack of water in the waterproof version is interesting. I wonder if that means it will resist bacterial contamination better?

Considering the extremely different ingredients list, these two mascaras actually do perform similarly, though I slightly prefer the non-waterproof option. It seems to provide a bit more volume and length with less effort, though the difference is minor (and in fact, when I look at the photos below, I can't really see a difference). Both of them are great for not clumping, much like their younger sibling, Covergirl Clump Crusher by LashBlast (reviewed here). I prefer how both of them work about a week or so after I've opened them and they've started to thicken up a bit.

They both, of course, have the same fat, plastic brush. If you hate spiky plastic brushes, you might want to avoid this one, though I have found that since the spikes are short and not too sharp, I don't end up stabbing myself in the eye like I do with some others (Benefit They're Real, for instance). The downside of the blunt ended brush with short bristles is that it's hard to get all the tiny lashes in the corners of my eyes or to get right to the roots of my lashes, especially on the back/top side of them (which I always coat, because they are blond, and they will look two-toned otherwise).

Here are my eyelashes bare, then with the regular Covergirl Lashblast Mascara, and then with the waterproof version:

Covergirl Lashblast Volume Mascara in Black

Covergirl Lashblast Volume Waterproof Mascara in Very Black

It's worth noting that the Black shade is not very black, unlike the Very Black shade. Um, as you might expect. Black is almost a dark grey/charcoal color, which is going to be a little more subtle. I think that when you compare the two photos above, you can see that the Black looks a little softer, and it's even clearer in these swatches:

I always like to have a waterproof mascara on hand, because my eyes are very watery. If it's a cold or windy day and I have to stand at the bus stop for even 5 minutes wearing non-waterproof mascara, I am guaranteed to end up with black streaks on my temples. This Covergirl stuff lives up to its waterproof claims. It is not, however, oil-proof--as it shouldn't be, because how would you remove something that neither water nor oil would melt? But be warned, during a very long and very awkward work dinner a few weeks ago, I went to the bathroom and saw that my waterproof mascara had transferred slightly to my eyelids, because the sweatiness of having to make nice with my professional nemesis in front of a foreign colleague was apparently more than any mascara could handle. I haven't noticed it smearing during normal circumstances, however.

If you want a good, everyday, no-frills mascara, this may work for you too. I don't think it's just my stubby lashes it improves. I first bought it on the recommendation of a friend with gorgeous, fluttery, thick eyelashes, after I asked her what she used, back in 2007. It doesn't make my eyelashes look like hers, but it did enhance both of our natural assets, as unequal as they are. Another thing that probably contributes my buying this stuff so frequently is that are often excellent sales on it on Amazon, so I don't think I've spent more than $4 for it in years. Keep an eye out on Amazon, if you're interested.

It's a bit unusual that I've stuck with the same product for quite this long, even if I do alternate with trying new mascaras. It seems to me that people are more loyal to their mascara than to other types of makeup. Do you stay with what works, or are you fickle about mascara?