ArtistryImage wrote:
Today's capture devices use primarily CCD sensors that behave much more like your own eyes...  thus this issue has pretty much gone away...

I respectfully disagree. 
Any makeup product still using a mixture of titanium dioxide and zinc oxide as an SPF factor has the ability to 'strobe'.  These are sunblocking ingredients, as opposed to sunscreening ingredients.  The only change that has eliminated this is the invention of 'sheer' protection ingredients that do not physically 'reflect', they absorb and disrupt the UVA/UVB/UVC wavelengths of light.

Bottom line remains - Professional artists don't use foundation products with SPF protection.  If UV protection is needed, it should be done in the prep phase, not in the application phase.

Curious - why are you spending a fortune on Chanel foundation to use on brides? 
It's not water-resistant or formulated to withstand the abuse a wedding day has on makeup (tears, hugs, perspiration, etc).  I'd save some money and invest in professional complexion products that allow you to control coverage and create a longer lasting finish.

KJ Bennett Beauty wrote:
Curious - why are you spending a fortune on Chanel foundation to use on brides? 
It's not water-resistant or formulated to withstand the abuse a wedding day has on makeup (tears, hugs, perspiration, etc).  I'd save some money and invest in professional complexion products that allow you to control coverage and create a longer lasting finish.

I was just about to ask the same thing. Not trying to hijack but would RCMA be a good foundation to stand up to bridal?

Shekeita Magitt wrote:

I was just about to ask the same thing. Not trying to hijack but would RCMA be a good foundation to stand up to bridal?

I prefer CS (my personal opinion).  It's got a touch of silicone to keep it from settling in lines and looking mask-y even at full coverage - and it's water resistant.

KJ Bennett Beauty wrote:

I prefer CS (my personal opinion).  It's got a touch of silicone to keep it from settling in lines and looking mask-y even at full coverage - and it's water resistant.

Thanks so much....I was looking into getting these along with the MAC face and body since I have some gratis coming.

ArtistryImage wrote:
Amy;

titanium dioxide is a common component of not only foundations but many powder product... and as KJ pointed out... it's used in sunscreens...

Only real way to know for certain is to test it with the illumination to be used in the bridal imagery...

that said, this worry is a leftover from film days because the chemistry (silver halide, organic dies, etc. ) in film emulsions reacted different than the human eye so photo imagery sometimes would look rather strange when illumination was by flash...  Today's capture devices use primarily CCD sensors that behave much more like your own eyes...  thus this issue has pretty much gone away...

btw... I would NEVER test a new product on a bride... lol   save the new stuff for non-critical work... make sense?

This is not correct.  I have come across this issue multiple times and in each case we traced it back to makeup products containing high quantities of titanium dioxide (typically for SPF).

I've never shot models with film so I can't comment on how much of an issue this used to be, but I can say that it is still a problem with my digital camera which uses a CMOS sensor.

ArtistryImage wrote:
this

I will not get into a debate over information provided by David.

Normal amounts of TD used as the white pigment to create color makeup does not cause the problem.  Additional amounts (over what is needed to formulate the color) mixed with Zinc Oxide to create SPF protection cause stobing issues in both film and digital photography when flash is not filtered properly.

Quality products with the latest technology no longer use these inexpensive ingredients as a source of UV protection.  But there are still inexpensive brands that do.
Seriously, none of this matters, Pros should not be using SPF color products simply because of the higher possibility of irritation or reaction from the person in the makeup chair.
Less active ingredients = less possible reactions.

Amy Elizabeth Makeup wrote:
I need to use foundations for bridal mainly and I really want to use a new chanel foundation but unlike the other foundatons this has a level of titanium dioxide in it?  does that automatically make it bad for photos? just dont want to rule getting this foundation if it can work??

Read the back of almost any foundation. Including MUFE and Smashbox, brands designed for photography. It's present in everything. Irrelevant with the invention of digital photography. Kinda weird that for years it's been considered bad for photography, huh?

Jordan Liberty wrote:

Read the back of almost any foundation. Including MUFE and Smashbox, brands designed for photography. It's present in everything. Irrelevant with the invention of digital photography. Kinda weird that for years it's been considered bad for photography, huh?

I have heard this many times, but it is contrary to my own experience.

KJ Bennett Beauty wrote:

I will not get into a debate over information provided by David.

Normal amounts of TD used as the white pigment to create color makeup does not cause the problem.  Additional amounts (over what is needed to formulate the color) mixed with Zinc Oxide to create SPF protection cause stobing issues in both film and digital photography when flash is not filtered properly.

Quality products with the latest technology no longer use these inexpensive ingredients as a source of UV protection.  But there are still inexpensive brands that do.
Seriously, none of this matters, Pros should not be using SPF color products simply because of the higher possibility of irritation or reaction from the person in the makeup chair.
Less active ingredients = less possible reactions.

Can you please elaborate on the filtering you're referring to here?  I'm interested to understand more about this.

Amy Elizabeth Makeup wrote:
Thanks guys for this great quick response, in answer to your questions about chanel I must say that Purely and I stress that on bridal work MUA in the UK love chanel everyone raves about it for bridal and I really havent had bad comeback on their foundations just raves however I want to be the best I can be and want to make sure my base is the top it can be so I want to swap for more RCMA or CS palettes and MUFE - however most brides I deal with want hardly any make, very sheer coverage can MUFE HD be quite sheer still?

Face Atelier is Very similar to the cheer look you are talking about...they have 1.00 samples that cover 3-4 faces for me. I don't see using a super expensive foundation making makeup look any better. Yes a bride may request it and at that point include it in the cost. CS, FA, RCMA, MUFE HD can all be used lightly on the righ skin types to get the look you want. HD is more full coverage and also RCMA but they can be sheered down.

David Kirk wrote:
Can you please elaborate on the filtering you're referring to here?  I'm interested to understand more about this.

Apologies. My mistake, incorrect term.  I meant diffused, not filtered. 
It's usually a direct strobe, with no diffusion or redirection (bouncing) that causes makeup with reflective UV protection to flare back in a whitish/grey cast.

Amy Elizabeth Makeup wrote:
Thanks guys for this great quick response, in answer to your questions about chanel I must say that Purely and I stress that on bridal work MUA in the UK love chanel everyone raves about it for bridal and I really havent had bad comeback on their foundations just raves however I want to be the best I can be and want to make sure my base is the top it can be so I want to swap for more RCMA or CS palettes and MUFE - however most brides I deal with want hardly any make, very sheer coverage can MUFE HD be quite sheer still?

I use MUFE HD for almost all my work, including brides. I love it and if you only need a little you can just use a little - buff it in and it's invisible and lasts all day, or use more for a fuller coverage.

KJ Bennett Beauty wrote:
Apologies. My mistake, incorrect term.  I meant diffused, not filtered. 
It's usually a direct strobe, with no diffusion or redirection (bouncing) that causes makeup with reflective UV protection to flare back in a whitish/grey cast.

YEP...this

And if anyone thinks this does not exist anymore...go look at your friends on facebook...look at their getting smashed at a bar photos, there is always the girl with ghost face in almost every group photo.   Shes probably wearing a foundation and a heavy sunscreen under it or in it.

Mary wrote:

YEP...this

And if anyone things this does not exsist anymore...go look at your friends on facebook...look at their getting smashed at a bar photos, there is always the girl with ghost face in almost every group photo.   Shes probably wearing a foundation and a heavy sunscreen under it or in it.

So true...I see it all the time. A lot more in women of color : (

KJ Bennett Beauty wrote:
Apologies. My mistake, incorrect term.  I meant diffused, not filtered. 
It's usually a direct strobe, with no diffusion or redirection (bouncing) that causes makeup with reflective UV protection to flare back in a whitish/grey cast.

thanks for the clarification.  I don't typically light the face with a bare bulb strobe, but have definitely noticed that this problem is more pronounced with my beauty dish than with a softbox.  However, it has been apparent even when using a softbox.

I generally don't have this issue when working with makeup artists unless they are inexperienced.  There was one case where a model showed up to the shoot with foundation already applied and the makeup artist decided not to remove it.  I later confirmed with the model that this was the case and that her foundation had SPF protection and higher levels of titanium dioxide.

In an earlier post you mentioned that the titanium dioxide is okay provided the makeup does not also contain Zinc Oxide as is typically done for SPF protection.  I have always only correlated this problem to the presence (in higher concentrations) of titanium dioxide and this has always been in makeup advertising SPF protection.  I never knew about the need for the presence of Zinc Oxide.  Good to know; thanks for sharing.

Shekeita Magitt wrote:
I just looked at the ingredients in my bridal foundation of choice....Revlon Colorstay. I was so curious to know why some people was having trouble using it for flash photography and now I know. The normal to dry has both titanium Dioxide (4.4%) and Zinc Oxide (2%)...which is probably causing the strobing. The combo/oily formula has only titanium Dioxide (7.3%). Could this be the reason I have no problem using it? I use the combo on most of my clients since I use a heavier moisturizer and it works great to block/absorb the oils in the skin on brides while dancing.

Out of curiosity, do either of these claim any SPF protection?

David Kirk wrote:
Out of curiosity, do either of these claim any SPF protection?

SPF 15 for Normal formula and non for combo.

edit* the Revlon site says spf 6 for combo but it's not on the bottle.

Shekeita Magitt wrote:

SPF 15 for Normal formula and non for combo.

edit* the Revlon site says spf 6 for combo but it's not on the bottle.

That seems to correlate well with KJ Bennet Beauty's advice above that the problem is with the presence of both titanium dioxide and zinc oxide rather than just the presence of higher concentrations of titanium dioxide.

David Kirk wrote:
Can you please elaborate on the filtering you're referring to here?  I'm interested to understand more about this.

KJ Bennett Beauty wrote:
Apologies. My mistake, incorrect term.  I meant diffused, not filtered. 
It's usually a direct strobe, with no diffusion or redirection (bouncing) that causes makeup with reflective UV protection to flare back in a whitish/grey cast.

I think you were actually correct the first time. I'm pretty sure that what's happening is the chemical in the makeup is fluorescing (glowing) because of the UV content of the flash lighting. Flash tubes emit some UV as well as visible light. Some tubes are coated with a UV-blocking coating to cut down on this, but I'm almost positive some still gets through in most cases. When a flash unit is diffused or bounced, one of the side effects is often a filtering out of much of the UV content of the flash.

This should have nothing to do with film vs digital sensor technology.

If you have some of the product handy, and a good "black light", it would be interesting to see if it glowed under UV lighting. If it does, then the effect I'm talking about could be an issue. The flash units might need additional UV filtering, to remove as much UV content as possible. Either that, or find a product that doesn't fluoresce under UV lighting.

David Kirk wrote:
In an earlier post you mentioned that the titanium dioxide is okay provided the makeup does not also contain Zinc Oxide as is typically done for SPF protection.  I have always only correlated this problem to the presence (in higher concentrations) of titanium dioxide and this has always been in makeup advertising SPF protection.  I never knew about the need for the presence of Zinc Oxide.  Good to know; thanks for sharing.

Clarification:  TD does not need to have ZO present to create the 'strobe' effect.  It just happens to be a typical mix of ingredients for inexpensive UV protection. The ZO often amplifies a grey-ish cast in darker skintone foundations due to it's opaque whiteness.
Add the additional pitfall of high levels of low grade mica in certain mineral foundations and you can't help but have a 'mirror' effect to direct flash.

David Kirk wrote:
Can you please elaborate on the filtering you're referring to here?  I'm interested to understand more about this.

KJ Bennett Beauty wrote:
Apologies. My mistake, incorrect term.  I meant diffused, not filtered. 
It's usually a direct strobe, with no diffusion or redirection (bouncing) that causes makeup with reflective UV protection to flare back in a whitish/grey cast.

Glen Berry wrote:
I think you were actually correct the first time. I'm pretty sure that what's happening is the chemical in the makeup is fluorescing (glowing) because of the UV content of the flash lighting. Flash tubes emit some UV as well as visible light. Some tubes are coated with a UV-blocking coating to cut down on this, but I'm almost positive some still gets through in most cases. When a flash unit is diffused or bounced, one of the side effects is often a filtering out of much of the UV content of the flash.
This should have nothing to do with film vs digital sensor technology.

Thanks for the clarification (and education) Glen.  I was pretty sure (not positive) I'd been told about UV light filters to combat this problem.  But unless I'm sure my information is correct, i won't post it.

KJ Bennett Beauty wrote:

Clarification:  TD does not need to have ZO present to create the 'strobe' effect.  It just happens to be a typical mix of ingredients for inexpensive UV protection. The ZO often amplifies a grey-ish cast in darker skintone foundations due to it's opaque whiteness.
Add the additional pitfall of high levels of low grade mica in certain mineral foundations and you can't help but have a 'mirror' effect to direct flash.

Thanks again for your further clarification.  Do you know of any resource that documents this information or have you just gathered all of this through various experience?

I have encountered this issue often enough that I'd like to understand it more completely so that I need not trust the knowledge of others to help me avoid it.

David Kirk wrote:
Thanks again for your further clarification.  Do you know of any resource that documents this information or have you just gathered all of this through various experience?

I have encountered this issue often enough that I'd like to understand it more completely so that I need not trust the knowledge of others to help me avoid it.

You'll have to research for documentation. 
My information comes from ingredient knowledge (I'm a product development consultant working with manufacturers and laboratories) and work experience dealing with this phenomenon.

Glen Berry wrote:
I think you were actually correct the first time. I'm pretty sure that what's happening is the chemical in the makeup is fluorescing (glowing) because of the UV content of the flash lighting. Flash tubes emit some UV as well as visible light. Some tubes are coated with a UV-blocking coating to cut down on this, but I'm almost positive some still gets through in most cases. When a flash unit is diffused or bounced, one of the side effects is often a filtering out of much of the UV content of the flash.

This should have nothing to do with film vs digital sensor technology.

Glen, yep you're indeed correct with the fluorescing issue...
albeit there is a marked difference between film vs digital sensor technology...

Here is an interested technical paper on this by Andrew Davidhazy, School of Photo Arts and Sciences, Rochester Institute of Technology...
http://people.rit.edu/andpph/text-ultra … n-18A.html

you might want to duplicate his experiments to satisfy your concerns... 

Glen Berry wrote:
If you have some of the product handy, and a good "black light", it would be interesting to see if it glowed under UV lighting. If it does, then the effect I'm talking about could be an issue. The flash units might need additional UV filtering, to remove as much UV content as possible. Either that, or find a product that doesn't fluoresce under UV lighting.

bingo!  a solution… this is exactly how I've been handling this for years... I would NEVER shoot without a UV filter in place on my lens... best to shortstop it at the entry point to the CCD...

btw... I've totally with you on

I could not stand breathing darkroom chemicals any longer. ...I started over with digital equipment, and without those pesky darkroom chemicals.

Glen my tenure in commercial photography began as a darkroom "consultant" for commercial photographers in my marketplace...  and "hypo" i.e. sodium thiosulfate, is not my idea of aroma therapy... lol  after way too many rolls of film and prints I embraced digital with open arms

As for the worst performer with hot spots or flash back... by far and away B&W film... it is the spectral response of the emulsion... primary issue of “flashback” is with the silver halides in the B&W emulsion… also present in Kodachrome's emulsion…  but not in Fujichrome and Kodak Ektachrome…  CCD's are no where near as sensitive (by design) to this end of the spectrum...

My compliments you your beauty genre work... your Pale Goddess vision of November 2010 is totally enchanting

KJ Bennett Beauty wrote:
Clarification:  TD does not need to have ZO present to create the 'strobe' effect.  It just happens to be a typical mix of ingredients for inexpensive UV protection. The ZO often amplifies a grey-ish cast in darker skintone foundations due to it's opaque whiteness.
Add the additional pitfall of high levels of low grade mica in certain mineral foundations and you can't help but have a 'mirror' effect to direct flash.

good call KJ, yep mica is typically used as a coloring agent... many forms of the mineral are brownish to black... it finds it's way into the deeper shades of product and is indeed reflective...

Ok, fyi my initial post was addressing the OP's subject of TiO... you'll get no arguement from me on ZnO (it's not ZO lol) which is the classic white lifeguard's nose protector...  not a good thing for photoshoots... Yes I would not advise, nor do I use SPF product for photoshoots... not a reason to... if I have to shoot in bright sunlight I'll always use a scrim or silk... actual I prefer the golden hour when light qualities are kindest to skin tones...

As for bad actors of TiO?  you pretty much nailed it with inexpensive UV protection since the real quality issue is with particular size of TiO employed... Larger particles can indeed cause a "whitish wash" to the skin...  The expense is in the milling of the product... many companies now list "micro" or "ultra" as a reference to the size of the TiO particle...  the finer textured product will have a more unidirectional light reflecting property...  thus kinder to photographic needs...  that said, product cost does not always correlate to quality

Source Natalia Michalun

ArtistryImage wrote:
Amy;

titanium dioxide is a common component of not only foundations but many powder product... and as KJ pointed out... it's used in sunscreens...

Only real way to know for certain is to test it with the illumination to be used in the bridal imagery...

that said, this worry is a leftover from film days because the chemistry (silver halide, organic dies, etc. ) in film emulsions reacted different than the human eye so photo imagery sometimes would look rather strange when illumination was by flash...  Today's capture devices use primarily CCD sensors that behave much more like your own eyes...  thus this issue has pretty much gone away...

btw... I would NEVER test a new product on a bride... lol   save the new stuff for non-critical work... make sense?

Try it out on a willing relative / victim and photograph in a relatively dark room and lots of flash to see how it reacts. You need to be confident in how it works.


have a look at the images here
http://www.businessinsider.com/cornswee … on-2013-12

KJB wrote:
Apologies. My mistake, incorrect term.  I meant diffused, not filtered. 
It's usually a direct strobe, with no diffusion or redirection (bouncing) that causes makeup with reflective UV protection to flare back in a whitish/grey cast.

Just wanted to quickly reply to your comment about  diffusing "properly".
Many of us photographers are going to use a harder, minimally (or less) diffused light for a particular look.
We don't want the makeup to rear-its-ugly-head with problems based on the light we happen to choose.

P.S.
It occurs to me that when you originally said "filtered properly" that you may have inadvertently been correct (as opposed to diffused). In that, if it's the UV component of light that is causing makeup with this content to floures, then the UV filtering (coating) of most better flash tubes would tend to mitigate that. Still - I want the makeup to be completely neutral from what lighting I use.

J O H N  A L L A N wrote:
...Many of us photographers are going to use a harder, minimally (or less) diffused light for a particular look.  We don't want the makeup to rear-its-ugly-head with problems based on the light we happen to choose.

In all honesty John I find it far more a challenge dealing with a clothing designer's fabric selections on varying ensembles... the sheen coming off a satin chiffon may indeed be three stops higher than than the next garment in their collection... when doing  catalog and look-books it is a photographer's mission/task to illuminate correctly, irregardless...

That said, in the past I've always used a UV filter for studio work, that is until recently... after very careful testing in controlled studio setups I'm definitely seeing a significant degradation on my high end 200mm micro lens which I've recently switched over to for beauty work... a UV filter is no longer an option for beauty genre... albeit for lower resolution capture devices and budget glass it's probably a non issue... You'll have to test your glass carefully to get your head around image quality issues...

J O H N  A L L A N wrote:
P.S.
It occurs to me that when you originally said "filtered properly" that you may have inadvertently been correct (as opposed to diffused). In that, if it's the UV component of light that is causing makeup with this content to floures, then the UV filtering (coating) of most better flash tubes would tend to mitigate that. Still - I want the makeup to be completely neutral from what lighting I use.

John the worst possible scenario would be a silver non socked BD dead on camera center-line... or maybe a 7" parabolic... lol  seriously you'll get bounce back even from talent with a clean face given that hard light... this approaches direct sunlight in hardness...

The problem that I've seen (but not be able to duplicate) is a mottled effect... which appears to be makeup based... is it the primer? the foundation? the matte powder? or more than likely a myriad of varying components... these images typically are of celebrities a.k.a. Paparazzi on camera flash... have not seen studio work with this type of issue...

Best advice? Work with a tenured team and let everyone know the illumination challenges you are wanting to mitigate... 

In my experience I've noticed that removing TiO2 completely from the mix to be a good thing... Be certain your makeup artist understands your needs and selects appropriate product to meet YOUR expectations...

So what to do?  Might consider going with a corn starch or rice powder based translucent... then TiO2 is no longer on the table...  My fav is Invisible Difference Finishing Powder which I use when I airbrush talent... it is totally compatible with TEMPTU S/B product and provides a wonderful silky smooth matte finish... being rice based rather than mineral I find it gives a lighter look in my humble estimation...

However the down side is Invisible Difference does not have appropriate shades for women of color (a significant portion of my client mix, your market may differ) and it is rather expensive even with my PRO ARTISAN discount... it's over a fifty dollar investment for all three shades I've had to make since I do airbrush bridal...

Cornstarch is an alternate more cost effective TiO2 free route... 

btw, I've reviewed nearly all the current studio lighting tomes and none to date are mentioning TiO2 as a major concern...

Hope the helps...