Urban Decay Backtalk Vice Lipstick Comparisons (plus a quick review of NYX Slip Tease Full Color Lip Oil in Lowkey)

Affiliate Links

Urban Decay's Vice Lipstick in Backtalk, in their Comfort Matte finish, is one of the most popular shades in that huge line. They even made a whole eye and face palette based on it. It's in that dusty pink/mauve/MLBB (my-lips-but-better) family, which is the largest category of lip products in my hoard. Despite its popularity and my personal preference for this type of shade, there's something about Backtalk that's just a little off when I wear it. It's not that it looks bad, exactly, but it also doesn't make my face look better than it did without any lipstick.

I decided to swatch all my lipsticks that are even remotely similar to see if I can pick out any patterns and discern why Backtalk doesn't work for me. And since I was doing that, I figured I might as well post them here for you, in case you want to find/avoid dupes--or in case you can help me answer my question.

Here are the swatches, in no particular order. The first swatch in every photo is always Urban Decay Backtalk.

1. Urban Decay Backtalk

2. Bite Beauty Pepper (Luminous Creme formula)

3. Bite Beauty Matte Crème Lip Crayon in Glacé

4. BareMinerals GEN NUDE Liquid Lipstick in Swag

5. Kat Von D Everlasting Liquid Lipstick in Lovesick

6. Make Up For Ever Artist Rouge Lipstick in Rosewood

7. Bite Beauty Amuse Bouche Lipstick in Fig

So of the lipsticks in this selection, besides Backtalk, the only two I don't really like on myself are the KVD Lovesick and Bite Fig. Lovesick is a little cooler, with more pink/purple, than Backtalk, and Fig is much warmer and peachier. (Fortunately Lovesick is also a sample, because since it does that dried-up butthole thing to my lips, I wouldn't want to be stuck with a whole tube. Also, I don't buy Kat Von D products.) I'm not sure I'm seeing a pattern here yet.

1. Urban Decay Backtalk (It's interesting how Backtalk will look different depending on what other swatches you put it next to. The lighting is the same!)

2. Bite Beauty Amuse Bouche Lipstick in Rhubarb

3. Maybelline Creamy Matte Lipstick in Touch of Spice (reviewed here)

4. NYX Slip Tease Full Color Lip Oil in Lowkey (which is very, very similar to Touch of Spice--more on this lipstick below!)

5. Colourpop Lux Lipstick in Angel City

6. Nars Satin Lip Pencil in Rikugien

7. Wet N Wild Megalast Lipstick in Rose-bud

Everything here is much warmer than Backtalk, and it all works well for me, so maybe that's something. Rhubarb is slightly blah on me, but I'm guessing it would look great on people who like Revlon Sultry, which is similar to Maybelline Touch of Spice but slightly less flattering on me (review/comparison here).

Side note: has anyone ever come across a dupe for Wet N Wild Rose-bud? I love the color, but the Megalast formula always dries out my lips.

1. Urban Decay Backtalk 

2. L'Oréal Colour Riche La Lacque Lip Pen in Choco-lacque (reviewed here)

3. Urban Decay Revolution Lipstick in Rapture (discontinued, but available in Vice format)

4. Urban Decay Sheer Revolution Lipstick in Sheer Rapture (discontinued)

5. Revlon Balm Stain in Honey (reviewed here)

6. Tom Ford Lip Color Matte in Pussycat

Pussycat looks closest to Backtalk here, and it's also the one I like least on my face, though slightly better than Backtalk. These two lipsticks are both pretty muted (i.e. they have grey added), so that could be a clue. Rapture looks muted when you consider it alone, but next to Backtalk, it's a bit more saturated.

1. Urban Decay Backtalk 

2. Tarte Tarteist Creamy Matte Lip Paint in Birthday Suit (i.e. last year's Sephora birthday gift)

3. LA Girl Matte Lipstick in Snuggle (reviewed here)

4. Burt's Bees Lip Crayon in Sedona Sands

5. Bite Beauty Amuse Bouche Lipstick in Thistle

None of the above is particularly similar to Backtalk, so the fact that most of them work for me isn't especially informative. The exception is Birthday Suit, which is an unflattering beige--I think it's the yellow undertones that set it apart from the superficially similar Snuggle. Come to think of it, though, Thistle is both very muted and pretty cool, and I like it a lot on me. Maybe that's because it's more of a statement corpse-lip, rather than just looking accidentally blah. (I'm wearing it in this Instagram pic, though the lighting isn't great.)

You probably want to see what Backtalk actually looks like on me at this point. (Apologies for the grainy photo.)

Like I said, it's not awful, but a great lipstick will light up your face, and a good lipstick will at least be better than nothing.

I'm not sure what I've learned through this process. I need my MLBB lipsticks to be muted, but not too muted, and more brown than grey, maybe. Or more brown than pink? Thoughts? I have definitely learned that I have way too many similar lipsticks (ok, I already knew that), and that weirdly enough I have never reviewed most of these. Any you'd like to know more about?

I'll tell you more right now about one of them. I recently used Ulta points to pick up a lipstick from one of NYX's 700 or so liquid lipstick lines, a newer one called Slip Tease Full Color Lip Oil. It's full color, sure, but having oil in the name is a bit of a red herring. It's not like YSL Tint-In-Oil or most other products called lip oils. It's less drying than most matte liquid lipsticks, sure, but there's nothing that looks or feels oily about it. (There are a few oils halfway down the ingredients list, but a lot of other things come before them.)

Here is Lowkey on my face:

More flattering, wouldn't you agree, than Backtalk? The rest of my makeup is the same, as is the lighting. Here's a lip swatch:

When you see it all alone, it looks like a rosy pink, but in the swatches above (second set), you can see that it definitely has some brown in it when compared to other lipsticks in the same family. The formula is really lovely. It's slightly moussey and thick enough that you can easily and neatly apply it using just the doe foot (not as thick as the Tarte liquid lipstick, though). It's opaque in one coat, but not so pigmented that it risks getting really messy. The finish is demi-matte. It dries down a bit but not completely, so it retains slip and moisture and feels pretty much like a bullet lipstick--yet it doesn't transfer easily. Wear time is about the same as a decent bullet, so you'll probably have to reapply after a meal. Best of all, it doesn't dry my lips out.

This is one of the nicest lipsticks I've tried recently, and probably the nicest liquid lipstick I've ever used. I'd recommend giving it a try if you see a color you like. That's my one complaint: while I love Lowkey (way to be hip to the new slang, kids), none of the other colors really interests me. There's variety, but something about the selection bores me. Bang Bang and Entice might be ok? I think a terracotta orange would be really great in this formula.

I kind of ordered Lowkey blind (you can never trust Ulta's photos for color accuracy), but it ended up working great. It would be nice if I could work out some kind of rules to predict which lipsticks will work best on me. Do you know what works for you when you see it, or do you have to try everything on like I do?

Stuff's on sale

Affiliate Links

Happy Canada Day! I'm celebrating by posting about good deals on beauty shit that Canadians will probably not be able to access. Sorry. I hope some day that I will once again be in the land of nearly-free healthcare and inflated makeup prices with you all. Until then, my American friends: here's some consumerism for you.

I've been having some kind of allergic reaction on my eyelids lately, and I'm not sure if it's contact dermatitis caused by a product or if it's environmental. In the meantime, I can't take photos of all the (too many) eyeshadows I've bought recently and have been wanting to review, like the Anastasia Beverly Hill Prism Palette. So while I decide which post further down in my queue to work on, I'm procrastinating by fake online shopping (you know, where you put stuff in your cart and then close the tab) and trying to avoid Twitter (but failing). An excellent use of time. Join me! I'm going to mention an idiosyncratic mix of things that I've used and can recommend and others that I just want.

I bought the aforementioned Anastasia Beverly Hills Prism Palette on sale, but it doesn't seem to be marked down this week. Instead, Subculture is on sale for $21 at Ulta, in case you've been eyeing that one. I've never used it.

Ulta has a bunch of other interesting sales at the moment, and a $3.50 coupon. Their jumbo haircare products are all marked down. That shit lasts forever. Real Techniques brushes are on sale, and I like those. The CoverGirl TruNakes Roses palette is $9 (reviewed here), making it about the same price as Walmart, in case you're not going there. I haven't used the Wet N Wild highlighters, but people seem to like them, and the MegaGlo Palette is marked down to $10 from $15. Revlon's Electric Shock lipsticks look intriguing, but I haven't actually seen swatches of them. Anyone else? They're on sale. I do generally like Revlon lipsticks. Hey, and how about a blue-brown duochrome eyeshadow single from Catrice for $4.50, if you don't want to buy the whole Comfort Zone palette (reviewed here) to get one? That weird jelly highlighter from Almay is also marked down. Has anyone used that thing? I guess it's Almay's attempt to be relevant, and I admit I am sort of curious.

Don't forget to use Ebates for free money. (Details here.)

I'll also remind you that Nordstrom Rack has a beauty section online, where you can sometimes get recently discontinued products for a good price. The Too Face Natural Mattes palette is only $13, for example, and the Chocolate Soleil Bronzer is $10 (old version, I assume?). They also have lots of MAC, Bobbi Brown, NYX, Urban Decay, Bareminerals, Lime Crime, Caudalie, Paula's Choice, etc.

TJ Maxx has beauty online too, and they have some Lipstick Queen, Nars, Clarins, OPI, Boscia, Make Up For Ever, Clé de Peau, Burberry, SK-II, and a bunch of others. And if you buy them online, presumably no one has already stuck their grubby fingers in the product!

Any other good deals out there? Planning to celebrate your country this week (or mourn for it) by indulging in some good, old-fashioned American capitalism?

New and improved? The new Wet N Wild Comfort Zone palette compared to the original

Affiliate Links

I have something of a series now comparing reformulated Wet N Wild products with their predecessors (here and here), among them some of my favorite affordable makeup. Those previously revamped products didn't exactly measure up to the originals in my comparisons, so I have to admit I had serious doubts about the new Wet N Wild Comfort Zone palette. Why change something that has been consistently recommended as one of the best drugstore eyeshadow palettes on the market?

I've been thinking the answer to that question for a while. Unlike many redesigns by other brands, Wet N Wild didn't reduce the product size while jacking up the price. In fact, the price has remained the same, while the weight has actually increased (minimally) from 0.3 to 0.32 oz. Because two new matte shades were added, and they are in the largest pans, that should mean that the size of each of the original shades has decreased, however, which is worth noting.

If I had to guess why the change was made, I'd point to the fragility of the shadows, and maybe the packaging too. I can't be sure, but I do know lots of people complained about their Wet N Wild shadows crumbling and shattering with the slightest bump. I don't know if you can see it in the photo above, but the duochrome in the in bottom right of my old palette does has a small chunk missing--I have no idea when or how that happened. If the eyeshadows broke too often after people bought them, you have to assume that they also frequently broke in transit and while they were in stores, so the amount of product discarded might not have made up for the number of sales. (I'd be curious to hear if anyone's new palette has crumbled, but the shadows seem a bit more durable to me.) Of course, there's also the fact that a new release/re-release generates publicity and increases sales.

I've had my OG Comfort Zone palette since 2011 or 2012, and despite appearances, I've used it quite a lot. It has intense, smooth, metallic shimmers that perform really well. I'm not such a fan of the matte shades with glitter ("Definer" on the left and "Crease" on the right) though they are decent for lining the eyes. I like it so much that the reformulation had a lot to live up to. I'm not going to do a full review of each palette, but I am going to compare each shade and show you some swatches and eye looks.

Here is the first row of shimmers, in the (new) order of the new palette, starting with the left hand column. All applied over Wet N Wild primer (reviewed here) to make the colors and finishes as clear as possible for comparison. The old version is on the left and the new version is on the right.

More Moisture! Review of e.l.f. Hydrating Water Essence

Affiliate Links

I have to admit, I've been skeptical of e.l.f.'s skincare line ever since it came out a couple of years ago. At the time that it launched, most of the products looked very basic and uninspiring, but priced higher than I would expect for basics from e.l.f. (which seems to be true of many of their products lately). Nevertheless, earlier this year I ended up buying the e.l.f. Hydrating Water Essence, so I'll explain why I think it's worth it.

I picked this up after searching for a hydrating essence to add to my routine. Now, I know there are lots of Korean and other Asian essences out there, and some of them have been recommended to me on good authority, but despite a few forays, I still haven't delved completely into Asian skincare. It just seems like a whole other field of study I'd have to master, and I have enough research on my plate at the moment. This e.l.f. essence have the advantages of being easily accessible (ULTA, Target, etc.), and only costing $10 for a huge 5 oz. bottle.

I got interested in adding an essence to my routine after looking enviously at all the people who seem to have achieved beautiful, problem-free skin apparently through applying layer upon layer of moisture. I'm sure there's more going on there, but having moved to hotter and drier climates this year, I figured that more hydration surely couldn't hurt. (Yes, I'm kind of using "hydration" and "moisture" interchangeably here, but technically they are different.) As it turns out, I do believe my deep dive into increased hydration has helped my skin. I don't think it has made permanent, dramatic changes, necessarily, but I think the increased moisture has done some good things, like decrease the appearance of the hollows under my eyes. For example, compare this photo from last September, when I asked for advice about reducing that sunken eye look:

A post shared by Lyn (brutally honest beauty) (@brutallyhonestbeauty) on Sep 13, 2017 at 7:44am PDT

With this one in similar lighting from February:

A post shared by Lyn (brutally honest beauty) (@brutallyhonestbeauty) on Feb 2, 2018 at 11:46am PST

Or this one I just posted today. The improvement in my under-eye area isn't the same as if I'd got fillers, of course--it's not preternaturally smooth and it's better some days than others--but the overall plumping effects of increased moisture in my skin are noticeable.

Now, I'm not saying that this e.l.f. essence is solely responsible for these differences. It's just one of many hydrating and moisturizing products I've been using in my routine (steps outlined here), but I've been using it consistently for a couple of months now, and I like it.

Oddly enough, e.l.f. does not emphasize what I would consider the more interesting ingredients in its marketing of this essence, the ones that tend to be lauded by skincare-obsessed people on Instagram and Reddit. It doesn't seem to be aimed particularly toward us weirdoes. Instead, they note that it is:

A lightweight and nourishing essence infused with moisturizing effects of purified water, coconut water, algae, and coffee.

Ok. The moisturizing effects of water and some other stuff. Let's look at the complete ingredients.

Water (Aqua), Glycerin, Dipropylene Glycol, Trehalose, Niacinamide, Chondrus Crispus (Carrageenan) Extract, Coffea Arabica (Coffee) Extract, Cyclodextrin, Sodium Hyaluronate, Sodium PCA, Urea, Polyquatemium-51, Triacetin, Cocos Nucifera (Coconut) Water, Coceth-7, PPG-1-PEG-9 Lauryl Glycol Ether, PEG-40 Hydrogenated Castor Oil, Disodium EDTA, Xanthum Gum, Phenoxyethanol, Caprylyl Glycol, Ethylhexylglycerin, Fragrance (Parfum) 

So it contains glycerin, trehalose, niacinamide, and sodium hyaluronate, and you're going to talk to me about algae? I mean, carrageenan is a fine ingredient, which is probably mainly in there to thicken up the essence a bit, but I assume they're trying to get you to think of the magical algae in La Mer products by highlighting that one. And sure, coffee extract is a good antioxidant, so thumbs up there. My research into coconut water in skincare is less conclusive, but it seems like it might have some moisturizing properties.

Overall, e.l.f. seems to be using exactly the opposite marketing strategy for this product that The Ordinary uses. They emphasize the ingredients that sounds familiar, natural, and generally pleasant, instead of the others that are effective, but "scary," scientific-sounding chemicals. As a result, I think they are going to miss out on some of the skincare nerd market, so I'm here to draw your attention to some of the other fun shit in there.

Glycerin is just straight up one of the most effective humectants out there, so seeing it second on the list is a good sign in a hydrating essence. It's also nice that they haven't canceled out any of its effects by including drying alcohol like some other "soothing" and "cooling" products out there do.

Trehalose is particularly interesting, because for some reason e.l.f. chose not to emphasize that this essence contains the mystical powers of *~~*~mushrooms~*~~*. A missed opportunity--especially since living in L.A., which tends to be on the cutting edge of health woo bullshit, I've been seeing miraculous (non-hallucinogenic) mushroom extracts all over the fucking place. Trehalose in skincare, however, seems not to be nonsense. It has hydrating, and possibly antioxidant, properties.

Niacinamide is one of my favorite ingredients (though patch test, because not everyone's skin likes it). It's a vitamin B that can help with enlarged pores, lines and wrinkles, uneven skin tone, and, in my experience, acne.

Sodium Hyaluronate is a form of hyaluronic acid, another of my favorite ingredients. This form is generally considered more effective than regular hyaluronic acid. It's a fantastic humectant that always makes my skin very, very happy.

There are other nice ingredients in there, and nothing that particularly worries me, but I thought I'd just highlight those four. Because there is so much water (it's the first ingredient), the concentration of each of these ingredients is going to be lower than in a serum, naturally--but do note that they all appear near the top of the ingredients list, well above the fragrance. The fragrance in this product is noticeable when you apply it, and it's a floral, sort of rose, scent, but it's mild. I can't smell it once it's on my skin. I'm guessing it would be okay for all but the least tolerant of fragrance, but it's something to keep in mind.

As for a review of this essence in actual practice, it has a thin, runny texture, a bit thicker than water. I dispense a few drops into the palm of my hand, rub my hands together, and then spread it on my face. It absorbs in a couple of minutes, but you can apply several layers if you want more of that bouncy, hydrated feeling, and it will continue to absorb. It doesn't cause any sensation on my skin other than comfortable hydration. Other products apply well on top of it. I even like the packaging, which tends to be a factor that's pretty low in importance in my assessment of things. It looks pretty and it's functional, with just a small opening for drops to be shaken out. I really have no complaints!

I also used the e.l.f. essence to make my own soothing/hydrating mist, by mixing it about half and half with water in a spray bottle, and it works very well for that purpose, too.

I've been using my bottle now since early March, almost every night, and I've finished less than a quarter. of it I have a feeling it will easily last me a year. $10 for a year is pretty great. This e.l.f. Hydrating Water Essence is a great example of an effective product with top-of-the-line ingredients at a good price. That's pretty much the best I can hope for from e.l.f. Now I'm wondering if any of their other skincare products are worth a second look. Thoughts?

Oh, in case you're wondering what makes a hydrating essence different from a hydrating toner? Nothing.

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?

An easy, affordable skincare routine for normal skin

Affiliate Links

My sister asked me last year to suggest a skincare routine for her. Her skin isn't like mine (combination on the oily side, prone to breakouts); instead, she has that elusive "normal" skin. Not too dry, not too oily, rarely breaks out. The only issues she specifically wanted to address were wrinkle prevention, pore reduction, and occasional redness. She has this great skin in her early 30s despite never having to do much to it--usually just cleansing with water and sometimes moisturizing when she feels like she needs it. It's also useful to know that she doesn't typically wear a lot of makeup and never wears a base (foundation/tinted moisturizer, etc.).

I recently asked her how the routine was working for her, and since she reported that she's happy with it, I thought I'd share it here, in case someone out there is in a similar situation. I actually think this routine would work well as a starter for someone with oily or combination skin, and maybe even dry skin, since these products will address a variety of concerns. All of the products I've recommended are either things I've tried myself or have been recommended to me by trusted, knowledgeable friends. You don't need dozens of shiny, $50+ bottles to look after your skin! Each product is $20 or less. and most of it is closer to $10, but I've provided alternatives in case one item isn't easy for you to access, or you prefer certain qualities of one over the other. The main exception is the Paula's Choice 2% BHA Liquid, which holy shit, I didn't realize it had gone up to almost $30 now! I'd really like to see a graph charting the price increases of their core products vs. inflation, because that seems like a lot. Definitely buy that shit on sale--I've also provided an alternative below.

There are three products in the photo above, but it's actually a (minimum) four-product routine, split into one-to-two steps in the morning and three at night. I just don't personally own all of the things I recommended at the moment.

Here's what I suggested (I added links to previous reviews):

I'd recommend only introducing one new product at a time and using it for a few days before adding anything new. That way if your skin responds poorly to it, you'll know what caused it. 

Morning:

1. Just rinse with water. (If you feel like your skin needs more cleansing, see Night step 1.)  

2. Sunscreen. It's best to use this even on days when you'll mostly be inside, and especially when you're driving to work. You'll get lots of sun through the windows of the car and probably in your office, and sunscreen is the most effective skincare product out there to prevent "signs of aging." It's worth trying to find one that's comfortable enough to use every day. I really like the one linked below--it's light and not greasy. It's better to use SPF 15 that feels good enough to wear every day than to buy SPF 30 or 50 and only use it once or twice a month. 

$10 Simple Light Protecting Moisturizer SPF 15 (reviewed here and here)

But if you do want to go with a higher SPF, which is never a bad idea, this is my favorite:

$20 Kinesys Performance Sunscreen SPF 30 (reviewed here and here)

Night:  

1. Wipe your face with a cotton pad/ball soaked in micellar water, instead of using a cleanser. The bottle will say that it doesn't need to be rinsed, but it does contain a little cleanser, so it's better to splash some water on your face afterwards anyway. If you want to be extra eco-friendly, I use little rectangles of flannel that I cut up and folded in half instead of disposable cotton balls (more info here). I put them in a mesh lingerie bag and wash and dry them in the machine. Baby flannel is really soft and you might be able to get a small piece for cheap at the fabric store, or just cut up some old clothes you have. 

$5-10 Simple Micellar Cleansing Water; $15 Bioderma Sensibio Micellar Water (pink lid) 

2. BHA exfoliant to get rid of dead skin that makes your skin look dull or clogs pores (and makes them look larger). It can also soothe redness and make your skin feel smoother. You can wipe this over your whole face (avoiding eye area) or just on places that you think need it. Leave it on for 10-20 minutes while you brush your teeth or pet the cats or do whatever else you do while you get ready for bed. 

$4 Stridex Alcohol-Free Maximum Strength Acne Pads (red box); $29 Paula's Choice 2% BHA Liquid

3. Moisturizer with anti-wrinkle ingredients. Apply it on top of the BHA after you've let it soak in a little. Since you don't have dry skin, use something light, and don't feel like you need to use a lot--just as much as feels comfortable. Make sure to use it around your eyes too. It will also get rid of the sticky feeling from the BHA, if you use the Paula's Choice option. The moisturizers I've listed below have vitamins and antioxidants in them so that you don't need to add extra steps like serum etc. (unless you want to!). 

 $15 CeraVe PM Facial Moisturizing Lotion; $12 Neutrogena Healthy Skin Anti-Wrinkle Night Cream/Moisturizer

If you wear more makeup than my sister does, you're probably going to want to go with a traditional cleanser. I think Neutrogena makes some great cleansers, especially their Ultra Gentle Daily Cleanser or Ultra Gentle Hydrating Cleanser. Obviously, you can also add as many additional products and steps into this routine as you like (for example, see my skincare tag), but this is designed for people who feel like doing something for their skin, but don't want to spend a lot of time and money on it.

I'm curious: do you have a minimal skincare routine, or are you more intense about it? Also, if you'd like to suggest alternate products in these same categories, that would be great! I know people like the CosRx BHA, but I don't know if it might be too strong for a beginner.

Concealing Redness with Yellow Corrector: Comparison of Urban Decay Color Correcting Fluid and L.A. Girl HD Pro Conceal

Affiliate Links

On a daily basis, I don't tend to wear a full face of foundation or other base product. Some days I'll feel ambitious enough to slap on some tinted moisturizer, but it's rare that I use a fuller coverage foundation. Still, I have a significant amount of redness in my skin, especially in the center of my face, concentrated on either side of my nose. I've also been breaking out a lot lately, and that adds to the redness on my chin and forehead between my eyes. I want that shit to be less obvious.

Rather than covering my face with a uniform layer of product, my preferred camouflage is color corrector in the red areas, a liquid concealer under my eyes, and spot concealing for blemishes. Then I set everything with a loose powder, and I'm good to go. It probably takes nearly as much time for this routine as it would to use an opaque foundation, but for me, this is an easier, lower maintenance process. I also tend to like how my makeup looks by the end of the day. I've tried many foundations and I never really like how they wear, though some are better than others. Finally, I just don't love the feeling of foundation on my skin, and I get self-conscious about whether or not I'm rubbing it off somehow. So foundation is something that I tend to only use occasionally.

I've written about using the Urban Decay Naked Skin Color Correcting Fluid to conceal redness before (here). For whatever reason, yellow color correctors, as far as I've seen, are never advertised as targeting redness. In fact, I've never even seen anyone write a blog or Instagram post (etc.) saying that they use yellow corrector for this purpose. But I am here to tell you that if you haven't had good luck trying to cancel out redness with a green color corrector, it's worth giving yellow a shot instead. For me, green correctors tend to add a greyish cast to my skin, while yellow simply disguises the redness. You can see a comparison in my previous post of the subject, where I go into more detail about why I think this works.

(Yellow correctors are usually aimed at improving "brightness," but it's not clear to me exactly what problem this is correcting. If you use yellow for brightness, I'd love to hear about what it does for you.)

What I really want to do here is compare the Urban Decay yellow corrector, which contains 0.21 oz. of product for $28, with L.A. Girl HD Pro Conceal in Yellow, which contains 0.28 oz. for about $3-4 (depending where you buy it). I don't think I need to do any math for you to see the massive value difference there, so I had high hopes that the L.A. Girl option would be a functional substitute, since I use this corrector so much that I go through it very quickly. I'm not eager to drop another $28 on such a small product if I can avoid it.

Swatching the two yellow correctors, you can see some subtle differences. The Urban Decay corrector has a more opaque, whitish base, and the L.A. Girl corrector is slightly more translucent and lacks that white base. I'm not sure these differences are strong enough even to be visible in my photo, but they are detectable in person. Urban Decay on the left; L.A. Girl on the right.

Here's my bare face right now--as I said, I've been breaking out worse than usual for the past couple of months. I'm working on controlling that, but in the meantime, I'd like to disguise it.

You can see that the redness is concentrated on either side of my nose, but also between my eyebrows, and on my upper lip and chin. I also have mega dark circles that are reddish-purple.

Below I've applied the Urban Decay corrector on the left side of the photo, and the L.A. Girl on the right side of the photo. I've only used it over those red areas mentioned above. (I also put on mascara and brow pencil, as you can tell, because my face hairs are no longer completely invisible.)

I think you can see, despite the mediocre indoor lighting, that it works really well to conceal redness in a natural way on my skin. Can you see any differences between the right and left sides of my face? Personally, I can't see any in the photo, and I couldn't see any in person either. Any visible differences are just because the blemishes in my skin aren't perfectly symmetrical.

Here are closeups of each side so that you can see what the texture looks like on my skin. Again, I don't see any real difference. Both products have a slight tendency to highlight flakiness, but not dramatically, and not to the extent that I'm bothered by it.

Urban Decay:

L.A. Girl:

In these photos, I've used the corrector under my eyes, as well as on other red areas. For everyday use, I skip adding it to my eye area and just use my usual Sephora concealer (reviewed here), which has a slight yellow tint to it. I don't find that layering a yellow corrector under concealer in that area makes a big enough difference to be worth the extra work. I do, however, pat the extra Sephora concealer that's on my fingers after I blend it under my eyes on to the skin next to my nose. Then I spot conceal pimples with Urban Decay 24/7 Concealer Pencil, which seems, unfortunately, to have been discontinued. Finally, I set everything with loose powder.

Here's the final result with all my makeup (hey hey hooded eyelids!):

I like the results. As for other points of comparison between the Urban Decay and L.A. Girl correctors, the biggest difference is the packaging. The Urban Decay packaging is prettier, yes, but I also prefer it in terms of function.

I apply my concealer/corrector with a flat concealer brush (I have this stupidly expensive Clé de Peau brush that I got for free, but anything similar should work). I'd much rather just pick up the product from the UD doefoot than squeeze it out of the L.A. tube into its stupid brush tip. It's harder to control how much comes out of the squeeze tube. I suppose it might be easier to use up the last dregs of the product left in the squeeze tube at the end of its life, however.

In terms of wear time, they're about the same for me. It's not all left at the end of the day, but my face is still less red than it would otherwise be, and the makeup doesn't look cakey or weird.

Overall, since most things are about equal, I'd certainly recommend the L.A. Girl yellow concealer. It's cheap enough that even if you want to just experiment and figure out if yellow corrector will do anything for you at all, you won't be taking much of a risk. But I don't think there's a real advantage to the Urban Decay option, anyway. The slightly more translucent base of the L.A. Girl product also makes me think that it would work better on darker skin than the whitish Urban Decay corrector--though there is probably a limit, because it is still a light yellow.

I was seriously surprised by how well this L.A. Girl HD Pro Conceal corrector worked for me, considering that I had tried one of their regular concealers in the past, and wasn't impressed (reviewed here). But for a product like this that isn't supposed to match skin tone and isn't supposed to create a totally opaque concealing layer, it's fantastic.

Is there seriously no one else out there who uses yellow to cover redness? Hello? Anyone?

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.

Is No7 Perfect Light Loose Powder a dupe for Laura Mercier Translucent Loose Setting Powder?

Left: No7 Perfect Light Loose Powder; Right: Laura Mercier Translucent Loose Setting Powder in Translucent

Translucent powders are hard to review. If they work well, they look like nothing at all. I got a mini jar of Laura Mercier Translucent Loose Setting Powder as a Christmas gift last year, and I liked it enough that I considered spending the $38 to get the full size. But that's a lot of money, so I needed to think carefully about why I liked it.

Top/Left: No7 Perfect Light Loose Powder; Bottom/Right: Laura Mercier Translucent Loose Setting Powder in Translucent

It's truly invisible on my skin, no matter how much I apply. I use it to set my concealer and I've used it on bare skin and over foundation. It never looks powdery and it doesn't cause what's under it to get dry and weird. Now YMMV on this aspect, because I've read reviews in which people have said that this powder looks cakey and obvious on their skin no matter what they do with it. I don't know for sure what the cause is, but I'm guessing it has to do with the color. It's very pale and on the yellow side of neutral. Translucent, sure, but if you have darker or cooler skin, it might not be translucent enough. In fact, I'm pretty certain that's the case, because Laura Mercier recently added a second shade called Translucent Medium Deep--the original is just called "Translucent." (Of course, the mini jar only comes in the lighter shade. Sigh.) Since I'm pale and neutral-toned, the lighter shade works well for me.

It also creates a natural, flattering finish on my skin. It mattifies but not so much that it looks dry and powdery. It has a very subtle blurring or softening effect without any shimmer at all. And while it doesn't exactly make my makeup wear all day under sweaty conditions, it works well enough to set everything.

It's great and I like it a lot, but it's not exactly magic or anything. So when I read somewhere that No7 Perfect Light Loose Powder was a $13 "dupe" for the LM powder, I decided to give it a shot. I'm admittedly not terribly picky about powder, so I figured that even if it wasn't perfect, it would be adequate for the time being.

(You might note that the LM powder contains 1 full oz., while the No7 has only 0.7 oz., but that still makes the No7 significantly cheaper either way you look at it.)

The main difference between the two powders is the color. While they are both light and translucent, the No7 powder is quite a bit pinker.

Left: No7 Perfect Light Loose Powder; Right: Laura Mercier Translucent Loose Setting Powder in Translucent

As I said, my skin tone is just on the warm side of neutral, but while I guess the LM powder is technically a slightly better match, they both work equally well for me in practice. Here are heavy finger swatches for another comparison:

Top: No7 Perfect Light Loose Powder; Bottom: Laura Mercier Translucent Loose Setting Powder in Translucent

No shimmer, as you can see.

I also blended out the swatches, but the photo isn't very helpful. I guess you can see why I didn't bother to show you a photo of the powder on my face. They both turn invisible on my skin.

Top: No7 Perfect Light Loose Powder; Bottom: Laura Mercier Translucent Loose Setting Powder in Translucent

But maybe you can see a little of the softening effect I described? Maybe not.

Other than the color, I haven't noticed any real difference in performance between these two products, so I'm quite satisfied with my budget option.

I will say that the packaging for the No7 is a little overly bulky and also slightly messier than the LM powder. Powder tends to settle on that sort of ledge around the edge of the jar and then scatter from there (you can see what I mean in the second photo above). Neither of these powders is so light that it flies all over the room and up my nose, fortunately (looking at you, MUFE HD powder). Both jars have annoyingly domed lids so that you can't stack anything on top of them--the No7 is almost but not quite flat, just to rub it in. And they both came with very nice powder puffs inside, which, in both cases, I promptly lost, because I use a brush--so no photos, sorry.

My suggestion is that if you are similar to me in coloring, just go with the cheaper No7 option. It's available for the same price at Ulta and Target. If you are pale but very warm, and you're concerned that the No7 might not be a good match, the Laura Mercier powder might be a better bet--but honestly I would still probably gamble that the No7 would be translucent enough to work for you. If you have darker skin, it's probably going to be worth your while to purchase the darker Laura Mercier shade. And let's hope that No7 and other brands get their shit together and realize that even if something is translucent, a light shade is not going to work for everyone. Is it really so hard to produce two fucking shades?