Forums > Hair, Makeup & Styling > MUFE HD powder vs generic silica spheres:

Makeup Artist

Elizabeth Gerbino

Posts: 1786

SHERMAN OAKS, California, US

Teresa Wylie wrote:

Yes, my man got me the 28 pc neutral palette and the newer one the 26 blush and eyeshadow combo palette for xmas.
I also got a multi coloured one too and again, pretty vibrant.
They are really good and give good colour payoff.
Oh and got the gel eyeliner in indigo blue, lovely colour and goes on well.
I asked for lots of different makeup from various places for my xmas and am really pleased with what i have used so far from that site.
Of course i always use a good eyeshadow primer, but even doing swatches first on my hand i was pleasantly surprised.

Cheaper doesnt always mean pure pants! big_smile

Oh my GOD. Do you know how much I love you for saying "pants!?"
So much smile it's my favorite british expression smile

Dec 30 08 06:05 pm Link

Makeup Artist

E E S

Posts: 772

Los Angeles, California, US

Must....wait...til...sale....


(But I did break down and buy some pigments + eyeshadow base from

http://www.electriccosmetics.com/EyeShadows.html -note- after the 1st, it'll be www.paintcosmetics.net   -they were only $5.50 each!)

I'm a sucker....

Dec 30 08 06:18 pm Link

Makeup Artist

Teresa Wylie

Posts: 3706

Livingston, Scotland, United Kingdom

Elizabeth Gerbino wrote:

Oh my GOD. Do you know how much I love you for saying "pants!?"
So much smile it's my favorite british expression smile

LOL, cool big_smile

Dec 30 08 06:49 pm Link

Makeup Artist

KillChrissy

Posts: 304

New Orleans, Louisiana, US

Ok I just got some and it is awesome. I haven't tried the mufe powder, but it would have to be 23 times as good as this stuff to justify it being 23 times as expensive. I don't think that is possible.

Jan 01 09 10:26 pm Link

Makeup Artist

Elizabeth Lakomsky

Posts: 2235

New York, New York, US

WHY oh why did I even open this thread? I now have 6 gel liners in my cart. But the bonus is that it's 6 for the price of 4! And I'm running out of my gel liners anyway, so this is a justified impulse buy....RIGHT?

Jan 01 09 11:01 pm Link

Makeup Artist

Elizabeth Gerbino

Posts: 1786

SHERMAN OAKS, California, US

Hey Y'all, I just wanted to update everyone.
Alex got me some "silica spheres" and i tried it today with my normal makeup routine. It definitely is VERY similar to MUFE HD, but MUFE is much more finely milled than this stuff. They both glide like silk on the skin and give a smooth finish but mufe is a little moreso.

still waiting on photographic evidence however smile

Jan 02 09 05:54 am Link

Makeup Artist

chart

Posts: 2365

Los Angeles, California, US

yes, i shopped too much  due to this evil evil thread as well....

Jan 02 09 09:38 am Link

Makeup Artist

DeAnn C

Posts: 544

Tulsa, Oklahoma, US

Ok I shopped to much also.  I want to get some of the brushes and pallets  they are out of so will have to wait till after the 5th, when they get a new shipment in.

DeAnn

Jan 02 09 10:14 am Link

Makeup Artist

E E S

Posts: 772

Los Angeles, California, US

Elizabeth L Perez wrote:
WHY oh why did I even open this thread? I now have 6 gel liners in my cart. But the bonus is that it's 6 for the price of 4! And I'm running out of my gel liners anyway, so this is a justified impulse buy....RIGHT?

OMG, you have to tell us if you like them....I'm DYING to buy them.

Jan 02 09 10:29 am Link

Makeup Artist

GaucheCoast

Posts: 140

New Orleans, Louisiana, US

Ok, so, I had a photog take a picture of me with half of my face with MUFE and half with silica spheres. Its in natural light, not studio light. I'm REALLY REALLY REALLY self conscious, but if you guys want to see it, I'll post it.

Jan 02 09 02:39 pm Link

Makeup Artist

TJMBennett MUA

Posts: 525

Tampa, Florida, US

GaucheCoast wrote:
Ok, so, I had a photog take a picture of me with half of my face with MUFE and half with silica spheres. Its in natural light, not studio light. I'm REALLY REALLY REALLY self conscious, but if you guys want to see it, I'll post it.

POST IT!!!

Jan 02 09 02:41 pm Link

Makeup Artist

Charlie Brazen

Posts: 39

San Marcos, Texas, US

Eleanor Sabaduquia wrote:
Must....wait...til...sale....


(But I did break down and buy some pigments + eyeshadow base from

http://www.electriccosmetics.com/EyeShadows.html -note- after the 1st, it'll be www.paintcosmetics.net   -they were only $5.50 each!)

I'm a sucker....

o0o these are a steal!!!

Have you used the pigments before?

OH AND! I want the Ultra Shimmer 88 Eye Shadow Palette SOOOOO badly

Jan 02 09 02:54 pm Link

Makeup Artist

GaucheCoast

Posts: 140

New Orleans, Louisiana, US

Here we go.... So I used MUFE HD powder one on side of my face and the silica spheres on the other. I wont say which. Feel free to guess which side is which, but PLEASE don't comment on my horrible skin or eyebrows or features. I'm not a model. There is a reason I work behind the scenes. I can't really take the criticism sad

Anyway, I personally found that the products performed equally well.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v631/gauchecoast/mufevssilica.jpg

Jan 02 09 03:04 pm Link

Makeup Artist

Elizabeth Gerbino

Posts: 1786

SHERMAN OAKS, California, US

Mufe on the right?

Jan 02 09 03:23 pm Link

Photographer

name name

Posts: 2602

New York, New York, US

Jan 02 09 03:34 pm Link

Makeup Artist

Nina - The Doll Service

Posts: 41

San Diego, California, US

GaucheCoast wrote:
I bought the 88 color eyeshadow palette. It isn't like, TOP quality stuff, but most of the colors are densely pigmented and photograph pretty well. I mostly use it when inspiration strikes and I want to test something on myself.

I also buy my pigments from them. They aren't beautifully packaged but they are good quality and CHEAP. They have sent me samples of some of their mica powders, which seem to be pretty standard.

I didn't buy my 88 palette from them but from a trade show. They probably came from the same manufaturer since everything's the same. All from private labeling companies. Anyway, I like the colors but some work better than others. I feel like they work WAY better when wet. I've been mixing them with Ben Nye's LiquiSet and they work! These are how they came out. I kinda like how I can control the intensity since some colors start off light. I'm not a pro yet, though!

http://modelmayhm-4.vo.llnwd.net/d1/photos/081229/22/4959c22b348d3_m.jpg
http://modelmayhm-4.vo.llnwd.net/d1/photos/081215/03/4946176c57121_m.jpg
http://modelmayhm-4.vo.llnwd.net/d1/photos/081031/02/490aa4c6482fd_m.jpg

I'd like to try that powder by costal scents, though. It'll save me from getting MUFE's HD one I was looking into. Great thread!

Jan 02 09 03:39 pm Link

Makeup Artist

Vincent Ford

Posts: 669

London, England, United Kingdom

I say MUFE on the right side of the image.

Jan 02 09 03:46 pm Link

Makeup Artist

Nina - The Doll Service

Posts: 41

San Diego, California, US

If THIS side is LEFT and .........................................................THIS side is RIGHT,
I think MUFE is on the RIGHT and CS on LEFT. I can't wait to find out!


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v631/gauchecoast/mufevssilica.jpg

Jan 02 09 03:51 pm Link

Photographer

name name

Posts: 2602

New York, New York, US

Jan 02 09 03:52 pm Link

Makeup Artist

David Klasfeld

Posts: 2665

New York, New York, US

I cannot stress this enough: DO NOT USE, OR CONTINUE TO USE THIS!

What is sold to be used in formulation as is the case with this site, is often done so in presumtive accordance with appropriate manufacturing regulations (i.e. amount, concentration, method of application). This does not speak to its safety if applied directly or undiluted. For example, pure pigments that are used in formulating eyeshadows, can cause irritation, allergic reaction or dermatitis if applied directly to the skin. In this case, through continued use, you may be risking something more serious: Silicosis

Silicosis (also known as Grinder's disease and Potter's rot) is a form of occupational lung disease caused by inhalation of crystalline silica dust, and is marked by inflammation and scarring in forms of nodular lesions in the upper lobes of the lungs.

I'm going to assume that Make Up For Ever has found some way to regulate particle size, etc. to prevent this from occuring with the continued use of their powder, but I would never, ever use something that wasn't designed with this as its intended use, like the way the HD Powder evidently was.

Personally, I avoid loose silica products entirely because currently, they have not been "assessed for safety in cosmetics by (an) industry panel" in "products that may be aerosolized (airborne)". I should point out that, as noted, the term "aerosolized" is not limited to aerosol sprays, etc. as you might assume - it refers to becoming airborne in any method.

This is especially concerning to me because in every other industry where the product is micronized and becomes airborne, the potential for it to cause cancer is classified as "strong evidence".

In California, Silica fall under the list of of carcinogens on Proposition 65.

Jan 02 09 03:53 pm Link

Makeup Artist

Nina - The Doll Service

Posts: 41

San Diego, California, US

David Klasfeld wrote:
I cannot stress this enough: DO NOT USE, OR CONTINUE TO USE THIS!

What is sold to be used in formulation as is the case with this site, is often done so in presumtive accordance with appropriate manufacturing regulations (i.e. amount, concentration, method of application). This does not speak to its safety if applied directly or undiluted. For example, pure pigments that are used in formulating eyeshadows, can cause irritation, allergic reaction or dermatitis if applied directly to the skin. In this case, through continued use, you may be risking something more serious: Silicosis


I'm going to assume that Make Up For Ever has found some way to regulate particle size, etc. to prevent this from occuring with the continued use of their powder, but I would never, ever use something that wasn't designed with this as its intended use, like the way the HD Powder evidently was.

Personally, I avoid loose silica products entirely because currently, they have not been "assessed for safety in cosmetics by (an) industry panel" in "products that may be aerosolized (airborne)". I should point out that, as noted, the term "aerosolized" is not limited to aerosol sprays, etc. as you might assume - it refers to becoming airborne in any method.

This is especially concerning to me because in every other industry where the product is micronized and becomes airborne, the potential for it to cause cancer is classified as "strong evidence".

In California, Silica fall under the list of of carcinogens on Proposition 65.

Very interesting.

Jan 02 09 04:00 pm Link

Makeup Artist

Saj M

Posts: 1620

Atlanta, Georgia, US

Ok just to prevent any further confusion smile i stole your pic just to make it easier smilesmile

http://photos-e.ak.fbcdn.net/photos-ak-sf2p/v652/206/99/597172688/n597172688_1327172_3109.jpg

Jan 02 09 04:03 pm Link

Makeup Artist

Saj M

Posts: 1620

Atlanta, Georgia, US

David Klasfeld wrote:
I cannot stress this enough: DO NOT USE, OR CONTINUE TO USE THIS!

What is sold to be used in formulation as is the case with this site, is often done so in presumtive accordance with appropriate manufacturing regulations (i.e. amount, concentration, method of application). This does not speak to its safety if applied directly or undiluted. For example, pure pigments that are used in formulating eyeshadows, can cause irritation, allergic reaction or dermatitis if applied directly to the skin. In this case, through continued use, you may be risking something more serious: Silicosis


I'm going to assume that Make Up For Ever has found some way to regulate particle size, etc. to prevent this from occuring with the continued use of their powder, but I would never, ever use something that wasn't designed with this as its intended use, like the way the HD Powder evidently was.

Personally, I avoid loose silica products entirely because currently, they have not been "assessed for safety in cosmetics by (an) industry panel" in "products that may be aerosolized (airborne)". I should point out that, as noted, the term "aerosolized" is not limited to aerosol sprays, etc. as you might assume - it refers to becoming airborne in any method.

This is especially concerning to me because in every other industry where the product is micronized and becomes airborne, the potential for it to cause cancer is classified as "strong evidence".

In California, Silica fall under the list of of carcinogens on Proposition 65.

holy shit!

Jan 02 09 04:04 pm Link

Makeup Artist

MelodyMoher

Posts: 1394

Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, US

David Klasfeld wrote:
I cannot stress this enough: DO NOT USE, OR CONTINUE TO USE THIS!

What is sold to be used in formulation as is the case with this site, is often done so in presumtive accordance with appropriate manufacturing regulations (i.e. amount, concentration, method of application). This does not speak to its safety if applied directly or undiluted. For example, pure pigments that are used in formulating eyeshadows, can cause irritation, allergic reaction or dermatitis if applied directly to the skin. In this case, through continued use, you may be risking something more serious: Silicosis


I'm going to assume that Make Up For Ever has found some way to regulate particle size, etc. to prevent this from occuring with the continued use of their powder, but I would never, ever use something that wasn't designed with this as its intended use, like the way the HD Powder evidently was.

Personally, I avoid loose silica products entirely because currently, they have not been "assessed for safety in cosmetics by (an) industry panel" in "products that may be aerosolized (airborne)". I should point out that, as noted, the term "aerosolized" is not limited to aerosol sprays, etc. as you might assume - it refers to becoming airborne in any method.

This is especially concerning to me because in every other industry where the product is micronized and becomes airborne, the potential for it to cause cancer is classified as "strong evidence".

In California, Silica fall under the list of of carcinogens on Proposition 65.

lol there goes that idea.. damn. it was to good to be true...

Jan 02 09 04:13 pm Link

Makeup Artist

Saj M

Posts: 1620

Atlanta, Georgia, US

david, since the products were from a cosmetics company, that i do believe are  from a private makeup label company, would it be ok then? i think they used the term "generic" loosly as opposed to a "top brand name" eg mufe.

or would u honestly suggest not even using MUFE?

Jan 02 09 05:05 pm Link

Makeup Artist

TJMBennett MUA

Posts: 525

Tampa, Florida, US

MakeupbySaj wrote:
david, since the products were from a cosmetics company, that i do believe are  from a private makeup label company, would it be ok then? i think they used the term "generic" loosly as opposed to a "top brand name" eg mufe.

or would u honestly suggest not even using MUFE?

WOW, i'm curious as well!!!

Jan 02 09 05:12 pm Link

Makeup Artist

David Klasfeld

Posts: 2665

New York, New York, US

MakeupbySaj wrote:
david, since the products were from a cosmetics company, that i do believe are  from a private makeup label company, would it be ok then?

Let me clarify so as to avoid any confusion - I don't want my comments to be misconstrued as controversial, just a statement of fact:

What's important to note about this product in particular is that it's being sold as an ingredient, and not as a finished product. If you read the recommendations on the page it's all geared towards being part of a larger formulation (ex: "This can be used  for slip in small amounts , oil control formulations of mineral makeup."). They aren't recommending that it be applied directly as a face powder.

Given what I know from the manufacturing side of the cosmetics, I personally wouldn't use any silica product with the potential to become airborne, and I definitely wouldn't recommend using the raw ingredient as a finished product.

As far as silica products that are sold for direct use, there's no reason to assume they're unsafe. Especially if a major company is marketing one, I would presume they took every necessary precaution currently known to ensure its safe use. If there's little or no potential for inhalation (i.e. liquid and creme formulations, pressed powders), then there's probably no cause for concern at all. But again, if you want to err on the safe side, then avoid it.

Hope this helps,
DK

Jan 02 09 05:40 pm Link

Makeup Artist

Saj M

Posts: 1620

Atlanta, Georgia, US

David Klasfeld wrote:

Let me clarify so as to avoid any confusion - I don't want my comments to be misconstrued as controversial, just a statement of fact:

What's important to note about this product in particular is that it's being sold as an ingredient, and not as a finished product. If you read the recommendations on the page it's all geared towards being part of a larger formulation (ex: "This can be used  for slip in small amounts , oil control formulations of mineral makeup."). They aren't recommending that it be applied directly as a face powder.

Given what I know from the manufacturing side of the cosmetics, I personally wouldn't use any silica product with the potential to become airborne, and I definitely wouldn't recommend using the raw ingredient as a finished product.

As far as silica products that are sold for direct use, there's no reason to assume they're unsafe. Especially if a major company is marketing one, I would presume they took every necessary precaution currently known to assure that it's safe. If there's little or no potential for inhalation (i.e. liquid and creme formulations, pressed powders), then there's probably no cause for concern at all. But again, if you want to err on the safe side, then avoid it.

Hope this helps,
DK

AAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH YES David you are completely right, i did miss the part where is was listed as an ingredient as opposed to a complete product, thats why i wanted a clarification on that.

but it totally makes sense, eg like sysilistic acid (sp?) is used for acne but in acne products you only get 1-2% of it. so in this case as its an ingredient is like using the full pure product which is not its intended use.



Now, ( forgive me and my over active detailed brain smile and im asking you this because i value your opinion 1000000000% and curiosity always bites the cat lol) 

What is your thought on lets say, adding small amounts of this product toooo... (just a randome name) Cover Girl transulent powder. Would the blend of the silica ingredient along with the other ingredients in the Cover girl mix together therefore preventing the "danger" issues?

Jan 02 09 05:49 pm Link

Makeup Artist

David Klasfeld

Posts: 2665

New York, New York, US

MakeupbySaj wrote:
What is your thought on lets say, adding small amounts of this product toooo... (just a randome name) Cover Girl transulent powder. Would the blend of the silica ingredient along with the other ingredients in the Cover girl mix together therefore preventing the "danger" issues?

Let me answer your question with a story: I've been in manufacturing facilities where silica is in use twice. In one instance I wasn't allowed in the area where the product was being made because it was what's considered a "clean room", and I'd have to have been issued protective clothing and respiratory protection in advance. The other time, I was allowed in wearing an OSHA-PEL compliant respirator. So obviously, this is pretty heavily regulated stuff.

Now all that said, the average person won't be exposed to as much of the airborne ingredient as I was in the scenario you're describing. But regardless, what's still a concern is what the cumulative effect of what they are exposed to would be if you're repeatedly using that same powder mix over time, both as the person applying it and the person having it applied to them. Another issue is that powders usually don't mix uniformly unless they're the same particle size and/or weight.

So my ultimate advice: leave this type of advanced formulation to the experts, which even I don't purport to be. wink

Jan 02 09 06:02 pm Link

Makeup Artist

Saj M

Posts: 1620

Atlanta, Georgia, US

Thank you David smilesmile,

Exactly why i specifically ask you because YOU areeeeeeeeee the inhouse expert with your experience on manufacturing, and as far as im concerned if YOU say no then it bloody well is a big NO. Your products are more than proof of your knowledge.

Thank you for your answers to my mostttt annoying curious self lol smile

Jan 02 09 06:07 pm Link

Makeup Artist

Rachel Lisa

Posts: 2975

Cincinnati, Ohio, US

David Klasfeld wrote:

Let me answer your question with a story: I've been in manufacturing facilities where silica is in use twice. In one instance I wasn't allowed in the area where the product was being made because it was what's considered a "clean room", and I'd have to have been issued protective clothing and respiratory protection in advance. The other time, I was allowed in wearing an OSHA-PEL compliant respirator. So obviously, this is pretty heavily regulated stuff.

Now all that said, the average person won't be exposed to as much of the airborne ingredient as I was in the scenario you're describing. But regardless, what's still a concern is what the cumulative effect of what they are exposed to would be if you're repeatedly using that same powder mix over time, both as the person applying it and the person having it applied to them. Another issue is that powders usually don't mix uniformly unless they're the same particle size and/or weight.

So my ultimate advice: leave this type of advanced formulation to the experts, which even I don't purport to be. wink

OMG-
I am SO glad I came back to check this thread. DK had already talked me out of SB airbrush products because of the same reason. By the way DK, I  LOVE LOVE LOVE my OCC sets!!!!! I'm so glad I researched with you first!

Jan 05 09 11:30 am Link

Makeup Artist

jdm

Posts: 1221

New York, New York, US

Damn, David! Thanks for dropping some knowledge on us once again!

Jan 05 09 04:37 pm Link

Makeup Artist

Nina - The Doll Service

Posts: 41

San Diego, California, US

Jan 17 09 01:26 am Link

Makeup Artist

KCMakeup

Posts: 674

Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand

Wow, So glad I rechecked this thread as well!  Thanks for keeping us all so well informed David!

Jan 17 09 04:53 am Link

Makeup Artist

Saj M

Posts: 1620

Atlanta, Georgia, US

guys this is actually a big issue out going on the internet now, with persons requesting a boycott of the company, through different youtube videos, someone voice the same concerns that David and others did here and the owner has apparently begun an attack on them for simply voicing their opinions and concerns

first review: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gz7ML-sb_Wo

then after she was attacked:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7uAhn04M … r_embedded

also apparently this person did a review that she didnt like the brushes and attacked also:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cn9gHhpd0Kg

Feb 24 09 11:00 am Link

Makeup Artist

E E S

Posts: 772

Los Angeles, California, US

MakeupbySaj wrote:
guys this is actually a big issue out going on the internet now, with persons requesting a boycott of the company, through different youtube videos, someone voice the same concerns that David and others did here and the owner has apparently begun an attack on them for simply voicing their opinions and concerns

first review: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gz7ML-sb_Wo

then after she was attacked:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7uAhn04M … r_embedded

also apparently this person did a review that she didnt like the brushes and attacked also:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cn9gHhpd0Kg

Heh, she called David a "she".

Feb 24 09 11:05 am Link

Makeup Artist

Saj M

Posts: 1620

Atlanta, Georgia, US

yea i realized, lol mabe so the person isnt singled out?for fear of coastal scents lashing out

but pfffttttttt miss coastal cant touch david OMG the whole of MM will be like GET YOUR PICK AXES AND FORKS LIGHT YOUR TORCHESSSSSSSSSSS ROARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRlmao

Feb 24 09 11:50 am Link

Makeup Artist

Teresa Wylie

Posts: 3706

Livingston, Scotland, United Kingdom

MakeupbySaj wrote:
yea i realized, lol mabe so the person isnt singled out?for fear of coastal scents lashing out

but pfffttttttt miss coastal cant touch david OMG the whole of MM will be like GET YOUR PICK AXES AND FORKS LIGHT YOUR TORCHESSSSSSSSSSS ROARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRlmao

I came across that drama on youtube too.
The girl was only trying to help and got abuse.
Unreal!
They cant seem to take any sort of difference of opinion on their products it seems.
If it is all good then great if not watch out! lol

Feb 24 09 01:14 pm Link

Makeup Artist

Saj M

Posts: 1620

Atlanta, Georgia, US

Teresa Wylie wrote:

I came across that drama on youtube too.
The girl was only trying to help and got abuse.
Unreal!
They cant seem to take any sort of difference of opinion on their products it seems.
If it is all good then great if not watch out! lol

i kno right!!!! im so gonna make a vid and at the end be like "whatcha gonna say now huh huh huh?? whatchyou gonna doboutitttttt huh huh hhuh????"

Feb 24 09 01:27 pm Link

Makeup Artist

Teresa Wylie

Posts: 3706

Livingston, Scotland, United Kingdom

MakeupbySaj wrote:

i kno right!!!! im so gonna make a vid and at the end be like "whatcha gonna say now huh huh huh?? whatchyou gonna doboutitttttt huh huh hhuh????"

haha!! i would watch that for sure big_smile

Feb 24 09 02:02 pm Link