martiangurll
Well-known member
I am just glad to see tattletale is back and telling tales...this review makes me want to try this. Is it more coverage than MAC's TM would you say?
MAC Mineralize Moisture SPF 15 Foundation Collection (March 2013)
- Thread starter Mac-Guy
- Start date
erine1881
Well-known member
:nods:
I just tried this out today..
You need to shake the bottle to activate the color a little bit. If you don't, the color runs darker. It's lightweight and very hydrating. On the skin it was very dewy. Since I have a bit more dry skin, it kind of dried to a semi-matte (almost eggshell) finish. When I tried it I only put on P+P Moisture Infusion before hand so I wasn't as moisturized as usual. It's like a thicker version of Face & Body. Similar to Mineralize Satinfinish but without the shimmer.
You need to shake the bottle to activate the color a little bit. If you don't, the color runs darker. It's lightweight and very hydrating. On the skin it was very dewy. Since I have a bit more dry skin, it kind of dried to a semi-matte (almost eggshell) finish. When I tried it I only put on P+P Moisture Infusion before hand so I wasn't as moisturized as usual. It's like a thicker version of Face & Body. Similar to Mineralize Satinfinish but without the shimmer.
Mac-Guy
Well-known member
An update on the finish of the new foundation:
The Mineralize Foundation is nothing like Satinfinish and cannot be compared to any other existing foundation in the MAC product range (The closest foundation would be match master but without the natural matte finish or tendency to darken up and get more red). It has zero pearl/shimmer in it, but it is very moisturizing.
The Mineralize Foundation is nothing like Satinfinish and cannot be compared to any other existing foundation in the MAC product range (The closest foundation would be match master but without the natural matte finish or tendency to darken up and get more red). It has zero pearl/shimmer in it, but it is very moisturizing.
RayannaBanana
Well-known member
I hope NC15 will work for me!
martiangurll
Well-known member
sounds like it will be worth a try, since I love Match master but would like it to be a little less matte/more natural looking. On the other hand, it stays on my Tzone for hours, so I can live with it.
lippyandlashes
Member
I'm really looking forward to this. I wear matchmaster and mineralize concealer so could be a good option for me. Does anyone else wish mac would release another foundation without SPF?? Also, on the mineralize yellow/pink debate I find MSF medium waaay pink!
erine1881
Well-known member
Why, are you allergic to SPF?
lippyandlashes
Member
No not allergic. It's just I can't use foundations with SPF for photoshoots as it causes flashback under flash. Soooo frustrating!
Mac-Guy
Well-known member
It will probably be too yellow.
Spikesmom
Well-known member
I was at a makeup workshop the other day and the artist told me that putting MSFN over any foundation will fix the flashback problem. I use MSFN over SFF and have found that to be true too.
erine1881
Well-known member
It's actually not the SPF that causes that. I use SFF for all photoshoots, and get no flashback. SF, which contains no SPF, is notorious for flashback. It's the actual size of the titanium dioxide. Tho TD is used as a form of SPF, it's also used as not. When the TD is a larger particle, it reflects back more light than when it's a smaller particle. Unfortunately, i don't think there's a way to determine the size of the particle, determining if it will cause flashback, aside from actual flash trial and error
lippyandlashes
Member
Unfortunately I have had problems with SFF and Sculpt. Its mostly around the nose - no idea why!! I know it's the Titanium Dioxide in SPF that causes problems and haven't yet found a foundation that contains it that I am completely comfortable using. It's a shame really!It's actually not the SPF that causes that. I use SFF for all photoshoots, and get no flashback. SF, which contains no SPF, is notorious for flashback. It's the actual size of the titanium dioxide. Tho TD is used as a form of SPF, it's also used as not. When the TD is a larger particle, it reflects back more light than when it's a smaller particle. Unfortunately, i don't think there's a way to determine the size of the particle, determining if it will cause flashback, aside from actual flash trial and error
erine1881
Well-known member
Weird!
Monsy
Well-known member
you think it will be released earlier than march?This should be up soon. I can already see the template on Pro
cyclops68
Well-known member
Hi all,Unfortunately, i don't think there's a way to determine the size of the particle, determining if it will cause flashback, aside from actual flash trial and error
I have followed Specktra discussions as a guest and then as a non-commenting member for a few years now, but I find the sudden urge to join this discussion now.
For the safety of your health, please favour using products containing titanium dioxide particles that are large enough to cause light dispersion (flashback). This is because when it doesn't cause a flashblack, it means that the particles are nano-sized. I am not sure if general consumers are already aware of it, but the cosmetic industry which so eagerly jumped on the nano train a few years ago is now slowly shying away from nano anything because nanoparticles are extremely toxic. Their small size allows them to penetrate skin and blood vessel barriers and accumulate in certain vital organs, which academic studies show leads to cancer in animal subjects. There are other on-going studies at universities across the world on the long-term effects of nanotoxicity. Legislation governing the use of nanoparticles is slowly taking shape, but too slowly, unfortunately, because scientific bodies and industries have been unable to properly define and agree on what nanoparticles are, and which ones should be regulated. I've spent the last few years studying nanoparticles and their toxicity for my Masters course in Materials Engineering and I was personally shocked to learn that companies were putting Titanium Dioxide nanoparticles in our sunblock so that they spread more "invisibly", but due to the related health dangers have stopped using the word "nano" on their products. Neither do they specify the size of their particles so the only way to know, as Erine mentioned, is by trial and error. Therefore, for your own safety, it is really better to have a sunscreen/ sunblock that blends less easily (larger particles) than one that completely disappears.
I hope that my post has been of help.
martiangurll
Well-known member
First of all,
Next, can you point the way to some references regarding the toxicity of the nanoparticles? Your post has me intrigued and wanting to know more.
cyclops68
Well-known member
Hi!
You can google "nanoparticles in cosmetics" and the top few results are either scientific studies or news articles like this one: http://www.rodale.com/nanoparticles-and-cosmetics
I'm unable to upload my course materials because they are in French and probably won't mean much since they are mostly graphs and electron microscope slides of nanoparticles and cells, but here is also an excellent scientific article published by the Society of Toxicology in 2007 : http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/content/101/2/183.full
In case the link does not show, and for those who haven't got the time to sift through all of it, here's a quick summary pertinent to our discussion:
- Nanoparticles (NP) have different physical properties from their larger counterparts (for instance, titanium dioxide "disappearing", gold nanoparticles of a different colour to microparticles, silicium dioxide conducting electricity in nano form when it does not usually conduct electricity.) This means that we can use existing materials in new ways, which is why industries are keen on incorporating them in everything.
- However, their small size means that they have a larger specific surface area than larger particles (like wearing a glove creates more specific area around your fingers than a mitten does so your hand becomes colder quicker). Larger specific surface = higher chemical reactivity. Chemical reactions that usually don't take place with a certain material when it is large can happen easily when it is in nano-form. In the body, this also means that certain toxic substances like heavy metal ions that would otherwise have been flushed out of/ unable to enter the body can now cling to the NP and stay in the body.
- Also, their small size means that they go undetected by the body's immune defenses. NP that find their way into the body (ingestion, respiration, injection) will therefore find their way to vital organs easily, such as the brain, lungs and other soft tissues and lodge there. The shape of the particles also play a part - needle-like particles penetrate more easily than spheres. Nonetheless, it is precisely because of this penetrating ability of NP that hospitals have started using them as a diagnostic tool. The particles are injected into your blood stream and eventually collect at cancerous cell clusters, thereby allowing the doctor to pinpoint the location of the cancer.
As I mentioned in my previous post, there are quite a few obstacles to establishing safety regulations for NP because people disagree on the cut-off size of particles before they are labelled NP, and also on the methods used in studies. What happens in a lab where one exposes cells to pure unaltered NP is not the same as what happens in real life: take the case of sunblock lotion. We apply it onto our skins and we go swimming in the sea. Some of it is washed away by the water and is ingested by organisms or undergoes reactions with stuff in the water etc. It eventually finds its way back into our bodies through the food chain or through us drinking water, but in a slightly altered form. There is no way of telling precisely what has happened in between. This is why certain universities have mini-ecosystems in giant tanks dedicated to studying exactly what happens to NP when they get into the environment. These studies are underway but take quite some time, so while the scientific community is starting to realise the associated health risks of NP, the cosmetic industry continues using them but does not actively advertise NP in their products anymore. Therefore, there is no way of knowing what size and shape the particles used in our products are. Which is why for now, a product containing titanium dioxide that flashes back is actually a safer product than one that doesn't!
