MAC In Extra Dimension Collection 2013 (April 2013) - Page 16

Quote:

Originally Posted by erine1881 


These can't be repressed, as they aren't pressed to begin with.
Both myself and another member have described the differences between all the powders in great detail previously.

But if they aren't pressed, how are they in a pan in the first place?  Whisper of Guilt isn't a loose pigment, it's in a pan, with logos all over it like they pressed it into the pan? I genuinely don't understand how it can be in a pan and have the logos/wave shape without being molded into it?

At any rate, I can always mix it with some rubbing alcohol and smush it back down into the pan and see what happens. *shrug*

If I do I'll post how it goes in case anyone else has had theirs break apart some in the pan.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sss215 



I didn't know they weren't eye safe. I used a sheer wash of them on my eyes all summer long. I guess it's better to be precautionary as a makeup artist when using them on other people, due to the range of sensitivities but for personal use, I didn't have any problems. Can't wait for the summer to return because Glorify was a big part of my quick and easy no fuss summertime look.

I did the same thing! Glorify is one of my favorites as eyeshadow.

I just asked MAC to see what they say about it, since I'm curious.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sss215 



I didn't know they weren't eye safe. I used a sheer wash of them on my eyes all summer long. I guess it's better to be precautionary as a makeup artist when using them on other people, due to the range of sensitivities but for personal use, I didn't have any problems. Can't wait for the summer to return because Glorify was a big part of my quick and easy no fuss summertime look.

how did you wear it? 

Those new EDSFs look so nice, can't wait to see swatches! it kinda sucks that by the time we are able to see online swatches, the collection has already been up. I loved the days of temptalia and bloggers alike that were able to review them before they came out...now I feel like I either must blindly buy or wait another week to see for myself
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by skratikans 

Those new EDSFs look so nice, can't wait to see swatches! it kinda sucks that by the time we are able to see online swatches, the collection has already been up. I loved the days of temptalia and bloggers alike that were able to review them before they came out...now I feel like I either must blindly buy or wait another week to see for myself
 

amen to that....

Quote:

Originally Posted by erine1881 



Just the recommendation, but do at your own risk.

I see. I tend to think that companies error on the side of caution since they don't want a lawsuit. I mean, it just says "not recommended" not "this will make you go blind", so for me I'll keep using it. But I also don't wear contacts or anything like that. If I did, I would definitely be more careful. Thanks for posting that! Do they have those for all products? I wish they would send those out with them, but I'm weird and love looking at things like that because it's good to know the extra info.

Quote:

Originally Posted by maclovin baby 

I repressed mine when it broke,so it can be done.it just won't have the logo/design on it anymore.

Good to know! I'll give it a try and see how mine ends up. =] I don't care about the logo/design, since mine is pretty much all worn off anyways at this point. If it were still brand new looking it would make me sad, but it's already pretty used looking at least.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sss215 


I compared the ingredients of my EDES in Grand Galaxy and Glorify, and the only ingredient I noticed that was different outside of the coloring agents was Mica. I've used eye products that have had mica with no problems so...
I would use select cover up all over the eye area and take it down to my undereye area. I would set with MAC invisible set powder in deep peach and then use Glorify to highlight my cheek bones, temples and wash whatever was left over my lids, I used on brush for all of it except concealer. Then add liner, mascara and go. Summer is no fuss for me when it comes to makeup, the humidity and heat is horrible where I live.

sounds pretty.  what brush did you use? 

I considered getting rid of my glorify. 

I might have to look into the mac invisible set powder.   

Quote:

Originally Posted by erine1881 



Just the recommendation, but do at your own risk.

Is this information actually on the product anywhere? I haven't looked that carefully, but don't recall ever seeing it. It's not on the website either, so how is the ordinary consumer supposed to know?

Quote:

Originally Posted by erine1881 


Its not recommended because they haven't tested it on the eyes to determine if it's safe to use there. As all their eyeliners (and shadows and blush) have been tested for use on the eye (including waterline for eyeliners) and lips, these specifically have not. I myself feel much better using products that have been tested safe on my eye, and not use those that haven't. It's not that they err on the side of caution, they just haven't actually tested it at all.

  I know some people (including fellow makeup artists) use products in ways that have not been recommended as safe, but I personally never do it either.  I actually had a big problem with the latest release of glitter from MAC because it was being advertised with eyeliner mixing medium, even though glitter is NOT considered eye-safe.  I expressed my concerns to someone on MAC's live chat and asked them to pass it along to whoever is in charge of that type of thing.  Probably didn't make a difference, but I was bothered enough by it to say something.

That being said, I definitely think that MAC (and all cosmetics companies, for that matter) need to make this kind of information available on the individual products.  At least pigments usually have the insert that lists which shades are lip/eye safe, but they really should expand that to other products, IMHO.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jennyap 

 

Is this information actually on the product anywhere? I haven't looked that carefully, but don't recall ever seeing it. It's not on the website either, so how is the ordinary consumer supposed to know?

Good questions.

After getting Estee Lauder Tease Illuminating Powder Gelee I much prefer this formula as a highlighter and eyeshadow then full on blush (just to frosty for a blush for my personal taste). So the blushes in this collection I'll be skipping on. Now how many of the 3 EDSF's am I going to get. ;)

It does blend down to a nice highlighter. 

http://www.warpaintandunicorns.com/2013/01/estee-lauder-pure-color-illuminating.html

Quote:

Originally Posted by Corally 


The blushes aren't as 'frosty' as the skinfishes.

 

No they aren't nearly as frosty.  Most of the colors aren't even very pigmented, which surprised me.  I thought they'd have really strong pigment but only about 2 of them do.  My wallet is grateful.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaliMel 

I see. I tend to think that companies error on the side of caution since they don't want a lawsuit. I mean, it just says "not recommended" not "this will make you go blind", so for me I'll keep using it. But I also don't wear contacts or anything like that. If I did, I would definitely be more careful. Thanks for posting that! Do they have those for all products? I wish they would send those out with them, but I'm weird and love looking at things like that because it's good to know the extra info.

The cosmetic companies didn't choose to err on the side of caution. It's because of laws in the US to protect consumers from potentially hazardous products.

I have some makeup i bought back in the late 1960s, and i can tell by looking at it now that it has ingredients that are REALLY not safe to put on my skin. One is a gold pressed powder that tarnished - it oxidized and turned green! That means it was made with real metal, probably what is called "bronzing powder". This has nothing to do with making skin look tan. Bronzing powder is real powdered metal. For example, bronzing powder can be mixed with paint to make a wooden picture frame look like it's made of bronze, or it can be mixed with something else and painted over old baby shoes - formerly a common practice to make a keepsake from one's child's infancy. So this face powder was made and sold back before the laws to protect consumers were passed in the US.

Nowadays in the US all makeup products must list all the ingredients in them (except their proprietary perfumes), use ingredients that are more or less safe, and note when a product contains an ingredient known to be unsafe for use on a particular part of our faces. I think it's good to know when some products aren't lip safe -- get in our mouths, get swallowed, spread into our bodies, cause illness or permanent damage -- or eye safe -- maybe not make us to go blind, but can cause irritation, infection, permanent damage to the cornea, etc. Other products may contain ingredients that haven't been tested on certain parts of the face, so it is not known if they are safe - as is the case with the EDSF and eyes. Of course, the ultimate choice is up to us whether we pay attention to warnings or not, but at least we have been informed. I always read labels, and i look up information unfamiliar ingredients.

However, there isn't nearly enough oversight on skin care products in my opinion, but that's a whole 'nother issue.

I don't know about consumer protection laws in other countries.

Quote:

Originally Posted by erine1881 

Unfortunately, it's not. The artist is supposed to be aware of this. And generally, consumers ought to ask the artist about recommended uses before using it for purposes other than the original purpose.

Where does this leave the online customer? This method of notification assumes some knowledge of cosmetics by the average consumer. Can the company really expect, say, a novice makeup user to know to ask if they can use a face colour to shade their eyes? Building an online database with this kind of info would be nice.

I could certainly see the waterline issue being confusing for regular consumers. In the 80s, the only place I used liner WAS on the waterline. That's what liner was for, yo. I did use liquid liner to draw on those extended cat eyes (inner and outer corner, not sure what that's called), but pencils belonged in one place. My waterline.

Only old people (like my bf's mother) wore eyeliner on the top. It was striking enough that one of my bf's male buddies commented that 'your mother wears eyeliner on the top'.

Now I don't ever apply eyeliner to my waterline. My eyes don't like it much since they aren't used to it. Where do I wear my liner? Mostly on the upper lid. Exactly where I wouldn't have been caught dead wearing it 30 years ago. LOL (And skinny jeans are back - although I know enough to leave my 45 year-old ass out of those).

The reason I only put my eyeliner on waterlines (whether on the bottom or top) is that it looks bizarre on me any other way. When I first tried out eyeliner, I put on the lid, and it looked terrible on me. Even many years later, when I tried it again and this time with some skill under my belt, it looked horrid on me. I think it's because I have really big, circular eyes, so it looks weird aesthetically. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by erine1881 




Unfortunately, it's not. The artist is supposed to be aware of this. And generally, consumers ought to ask the artist about recommended uses before using it for purposes other than the original purpose.

But there are MANY people that use items for non-tested usages-
Shadow on the waterline
Fluidline on the waterline
Powerpoint on the waterline
I watched a YT vid of a mac artist using a pearlglide on the waterline

We can't use fluidlines and powerpoints on the waterline?   Ugh!