[kayleigh83]

One thing that should be noted - this isn't just some woman writing about her personal preferences. This is a male makeup artist who has an unbelievable amount of knowledge about the chemical side of makeup, as well as having done work in many fashion shows, ad campaigns and publications you would all be familiar with (Imitation of Christ, Diesel, Patricia Field, Zink, New York Magazine, Interview, Target, Best Buy etc.)

I am a member of an industry site created for people in the industry (stylists, models, photographers etc.) to network, at all levels from amateur to pro, and he's also on this website and quite active in its forums. Reading many of his posts on those forums, I've come to see that his knowledge of makeup beyond just the basic what colours and textures go together is quite astounding. He is basically the go-to guy when anyone wants to know anything about the more chemical side of makeup. So his blog there is not just an opinion piece... it's quite rooted in fact and a lot of knowledge.

[StereoXGirl]

Hmm...honestly, mmu makes my skin feel tight and itchy and doesn't stay on me for very long. And I need to layer it on to get the coverage I need...so it looks all chalky on my skin. I still prefer my non-mmu by far.

[erijane]

Originally Posted by Leora

good info, thanks!

ditto- thanks for the info!

[missleers]

i am trying to reply to read that article

[stashblaster]

Originally Posted by kayleigh83

Yes, but the point of this article isn't just that minerals are nothing new, it's also that mineral makeup is made of exactly the same thing as regular makeup, just marketed differently. Similar, I suppose, to how one mascara is marketed as lengthening and one as curling, but they both contain basically exactly the same things. They're just trying to sell them to different customers!

I'm going to disagree with this statement. I wear Meow Foundation. The ingredients are mica, titanium dioxide and oxides. I believe that Cory only has one ingredient along with the oxides. Take a look at any liquid foundation. What would you rather put on your face? The mineral makeup foundations that are hitting the market from the "big" companies are not in the same league as the smaller companies, IMHO. The larger companies are trying to get their piece of the pie back. Their mineral foundations have lots of fillers in them. Yes, all foundations use oxides as colorants but that doesn't make up the bulk of the foundation. In addition, a previous post mentioned that so many companies used talc. Once again, many of the smaller companies have very few ingredients and talc is usually not one of them.

[entipy]

Originally Posted by SukiBelle

putting the 'better for your skin' thing aside for a minute....mmu just LOOKS better, imo. After trying a batch for the first time and running out, I reached for my old foundation that day and I just looked like I was wearing a MASK compared to the mmu.

For that reason alone I'll never go back to liquid.

That and the feel of it (for me, anyway). I despise how liquid feels on my skin now.

Originally Posted by kayleigh83

One thing that should be noted - this isn't just some woman writing about her personal preferences. This is a male makeup artist who has an unbelievable amount of knowledge about the chemical side of makeup, as well as having done work in many fashion shows, ad campaigns and publications you would all be familiar with (Imitation of Christ, Diesel, Patricia Field, Zink, New York Magazine, Interview, Target, Best Buy etc.)

I am a member of an industry site created for people in the industry (stylists, models, photographers etc.) to network, at all levels from amateur to pro, and he's also on this website and quite active in its forums. Reading many of his posts on those forums, I've come to see that his knowledge of makeup beyond just the basic what colours and textures go together is quite astounding. He is basically the go-to guy when anyone wants to know anything about the more chemical side of makeup. So his blog there is not just an opinion piece... it's quite rooted in fact and a lot of knowledge.

That's cool. Not sure if this is in response to my post about it being a blog entry. Despite his knowledge in chemicals, however, the truth of the matter is, the junk in most make-ups makes people break out a LOT more often than minerals, and like I said before, just because they contain the same ingredients - doesn't make them just as good for your skin.

Originally Posted by stashblaster

The mineral makeup foundations that are hitting the market from the "big" companies are not in the same league as the smaller companies, IMHO. The larger companies are trying to get their piece of the pie back. Their mineral foundations have lots of fillers in them.

I agree! The smaller companies seem to have the better stuff.

[lotusindigo]

Right. As savvy as this man might be in the cosmetics industry, I don't see how he can compare the ingredients lists of most REAL mineral foundations to the ingredients of most liquid foundations. The ingredients list of a mineral foundation looks like a sentence. The ingredients list of a liquid foundation looks like a PARAGRAPH. Same with most powders on the market. Lines and lines of fillers, many of which are irritants/cloggers. The author of that article doesn't even mention that difference, which tells me that he's not bothering to look at things under an objective light. He does however mention that the less product you have on your skin... the better. But somehow he doesn't see the contradiction between his admission that less product is better... and his claim that you'd get the same benefit from traditional makeup that you'd get from MMU. Because if less is better, then how can he say that having all those irritants and fillers is just as good as NOT having them?

[Ode to Joy]

Originally Posted by stashblaster

I'm going to disagree with this statement. I wear Meow Foundation. The ingredients are mica, titanium dioxide and oxides. I believe that Cory only has one ingredient along with the oxides. Take a look at any liquid foundation. What would you rather put on your face? The mineral makeup foundations that are hitting the market from the "big" companies are not in the same league as the smaller companies, IMHO. The larger companies are trying to get their piece of the pie back. Their mineral foundations have lots of fillers in them. Yes, all foundations use oxides as colorants but that doesn't make up the bulk of the foundation. In addition, a previous post mentioned that so many companies used talc. Once again, many of the smaller companies have very ingredients and talc is usually not one of them.

def right but I think it about this *Oh use mineral makeup now it's so healthy and green. Liquid MMU is evil* way of advertising or thinking you can see everywhere.

go here to have a look at ingredients of different mmu brands:
Mineral Powder Foundation Ingredients List

[squirl-nutkin]

Originally Posted by kayleigh83

One thing that should be noted - this isn't just some woman writing about her personal preferences. This is a male makeup artist who has an unbelievable amount of knowledge about the chemical side of makeup, as well as having done work in many fashion shows, ad campaigns and publications you would all be familiar with (Imitation of Christ, Diesel, Patricia Field, Zink, New York Magazine, Interview, Target, Best Buy etc.)

I am a member of an industry site created for people in the industry (stylists, models, photographers etc.) to network, at all levels from amateur to pro, and he's also on this website and quite active in its forums. Reading many of his posts on those forums, I've come to see that his knowledge of makeup beyond just the basic what colours and textures go together is quite astounding. He is basically the go-to guy when anyone wants to know anything about the more chemical side of makeup. So his blog there is not just an opinion piece... it's quite rooted in fact and a lot of knowledge.

It maybe more than an opinion piece but the fact he neglected to mention several things makes it an unbalanced article. He is forgetting the principles of writing a cohesive informed article. I don't doubt that he knows his stuff about the chemistry of makeup but info and trends are always changing.

One minute parabens are the safest preservatives around and the next its a possible stimulus for breast cancer. At one point the earth was believed to be flat and then next round. We all have to continue to learn and be willing to grow. And the fact that mainstream companies are getting on the mineral bandwagon means either they feel their piece of the pie is getting smaller or they see a consumer demand.

[Fire]

Right, only when the demand is there [and it is], do the mainstream companies get on the bandwagon. Losing customers and money definitely gets through to them. Then they think minerals are a great idea.

[dlwt2003]

Originally Posted by SukiBelle

I wonder if the 'marketing' behind the article is to get women to go back to liquid foundation?

3 more posts to go!

I would imagine enough of us have gone mineral it could be a small dent in the major makeup companies bottom line thats why they are putting out minerals HOWEVER not near as good as the small companies JMO

[fightingforty]

Originally Posted by SukiBelle

hmm...I'd like to read that but need 7 more posts to do so!

Me too (sigh)

[cyberfemme]

Originally Posted by lotusindigo

Right. As savvy as this man might be in the cosmetics industry, I don't see how he can compare the ingredients lists of most REAL mineral foundations to the ingredients of most liquid foundations. The ingredients list of a mineral foundation looks like a sentence. The ingredients list of a liquid foundation looks like a PARAGRAPH. Same with most powders on the market. Lines and lines of fillers, many of which are irritants/cloggers. The author of that article doesn't even mention that difference, which tells me that he's not bothering to look at things under an objective light. He does however mention that the less product you have on your skin... the better. But somehow he doesn't see the contradiction between his admission that less product is better... and his claim that you'd get the same benefit from traditional makeup that you'd get from MMU. Because if less is better, then how can he say that having all those irritants and fillers is just as good as NOT having them?

Totally agree. I was thinking the same thing as I read the article. In addition, it seems that he has two rants going. One the marketing campaign for minerals and two the mineral make up itself. I disagree with his analysis/comparison of mineral to liquid but I agree with the campaign part, though, that's business.

Originally Posted by kayleigh83

One thing that should be noted - this isn't just some woman writing about her personal preferences. This is a male makeup artist who has an unbelievable amount of knowledge about the chemical side of makeup, as well as having done work in many fashion shows, ad campaigns and publications you would all be familiar with (Imitation of Christ, Diesel, Patricia Field, Zink, New York Magazine, Interview, Target, Best Buy etc.)

I am a member of an industry site created for people in the industry (stylists, models, photographers etc.) to network, at all levels from amateur to pro, and he's also on this website and quite active in its forums. Reading many of his posts on those forums, I've come to see that his knowledge of makeup beyond just the basic what colours and textures go together is quite astounding. He is basically the go-to guy when anyone wants to know anything about the more chemical side of makeup. So his blog there is not just an opinion piece... it's quite rooted in fact and a lot of knowledge.

As someone else with a lot of knowledge about the chemical side of makeup (um...I'm a formulation chemist)....I have to say....I could have written that myself. He's right.

Mineral makeup is just a marketing concept. Before modern cosmetic fomulations existed, people used iron oxides (basically different colors of rust) as makeup. It's nothing new....it's actually very, very, old (beyond retro).

These "minerals" (mica, titanium dioxide, zinc oxide, iron oxides, and stuff like silica and kaolin clay) have been used in cosmetics for centuries.

What makes them better for your skin is that they don't contain much else (well the real "minerals" anyway). There is no way of actually defining what a mineral makeup is. You'll see drugstore brands marketing a standard silicone based liquid makeup as a mineral makeup because it contains...um...iron oxides, titanium dioxide, mica and silica....give me a break....I'm not an idoit.....all makeups contain that stuff......gah...

Oh...and since when was talc not a mineral??

If it's not a mineral then what is it???

For the record....I don't have anything against mineral makeup....just they way it's marketed....