# Studio Lights



## blazeno.8 (Nov 17, 2007)

I would like to know if anyone has tried this.  What do you think of this product, is it WOC friendly; ashy; glitter/grease bomb like?  I'm really excited to hear what you guys have to say about these!
Product description:
A softly tinted, sheer, reflective, semi-fluid colour used on the under-eye area to help brighten the look of dark circles. Can also be used to highlight and contour key areas of the face.

I'm particularly interested in Smooth Spice.
I'm NC 500-600 in hyper real for reference (I range from NC 43-45 or possibly higher).


----------



## Twinkle_Twinkle (Nov 17, 2007)

I've tried it, and I like it.  It does brighten under the eye area.  I bought 4 because the tube is smaller than it looks.  I'm NW45 for reference.


----------



## greatscott2000 (Nov 17, 2007)

Thats nice to know Twinkle_Twinkle. I can't wait to try it out tomorrow- I hope that its better than YSL's Touche Eclat.. its half the price!


----------



## amoona (Nov 17, 2007)

I honestly haven't used them on myself yet but I used them on a customer today and she was a C7 for reference. I honestly forgot which one I used but it added a slight glow and it looked great.


----------



## aziajs (Nov 17, 2007)

I'd like to see these.  I am curious about what they do for the skin.


----------



## AfricanaEyes (Nov 17, 2007)

Me too....I don't think I understand what it's "supposed" to do.


----------



## Twinkle_Twinkle (Nov 17, 2007)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *AfricanaEyes* 

 
_Me too....I don't think I understand what it's "supposed" to do._

 
It's supposed the illuminate the under-eye area, where a lot of us have dark circles.  I like it because I can stop using my expensive Px Custom Blend concealor under my eyes, and if you think about it, there is nothing under the eyes that we really need to _conceal_, just brighten.  

Anyway, greatscott, I haven't tried the YSL product, although I wondered over to the counter when I was in Nordstrom.  They had three shades, they all looked really light to me, but really creamy.  I guess there is a Toffee shade, but for some reason it wasn't on the display.  I think, just from what I saw, that the YSL Touch Eclat might be (i.e is probably) nicer, however, at less than half the price, the MAC will definately do 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





.    You also get more product, .17 ounces versus .1 with the YSL.  It's nice, but probably not as nice as the YSL, but I think most of us feel that way about a lot of MAC products versus very high end beauty lines.  It depends on what you're willing to pay for it I guess.  In conclusion (this post is getting longer by the second) I'd say that generally I'm not a huge MAC face-product fan, excluding the blot powder and concealor, but I like this product, and I'll proabably be hoarding more.  That should say a lot.  

Side Note, for any Px addicts, I wonder if they could Custom Blend a concealor that did nothing but illuminate rather than conceal...?  Hmmm


----------



## blazeno.8 (Nov 17, 2007)

Uh... I guess another question I have is how do they compare to the Smashbox illuminators (uh, I don't know the real name of the product).  They come in tiny pump bottles like the MAC Glimmershimmers (but slightly larger and boxier) and have 3-4 shades.  Oh yes... how do they compare to Glimmershimmers?


----------



## aziajs (Nov 17, 2007)

^^^^ You mean the artificial light by Smashbox.  I like them better than the Glimmershimmer.  I think that they have a smoother texture.

OOPS...you meant how do the studio lights compare to the glimmershimmers.  LOL


----------



## blazeno.8 (Nov 17, 2007)

^^^ I mean how do all three compare to each other so that's still right on key.


----------



## jilliandanica (Nov 17, 2007)

I really wanna try these but I'd like to know what the ingredients are first. Anyone that has purchased these...if it's not too much trouble I'd love to know what's in it. I mixed my concealer with base light paint and I loved it...wonder if these will do the same


----------



## Twinkle_Twinkle (Nov 18, 2007)

The Studio Lights don't have obvious shimmer, so the effect is going to be more natural.  I haven't used the Smashbox products, but I wouldn't (personally) use Glimmershimmers under my eye.  Studio Lights are going to give a similar effect as using concealor under the eye, but better in my opinion because it's illuminating, not just concealing.  Although a lot of concealors have illuminating ingredients.  It just depends on what you're looking for.  It's another option to add to you basic application. 

 Quote:

   Originally Posted by *blazeno.8* 

 
_^^^ I mean how do all three compare to each other so that's still right on key._


----------



## lovely333 (Nov 18, 2007)

I tried it yesterday and loved it. There was no shimmer but it brightened up under my eyes beautifully


----------



## lovely333 (Nov 18, 2007)

Oh and the beauty powders are quite nice. Anyone else try them?


----------



## user46 (Nov 18, 2007)

how do you put them on, just like a concealer?


----------



## KeshieShimmer (Nov 18, 2007)

What colors are you all getting and what shade are you in MAC?

Thanks


----------



## Twinkle_Twinkle (Nov 18, 2007)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *MACpro__** 

 
_how do you put them on, just like a concealer?_

 
Yes. 

And I wasn't impressed by the Beauty Powders.  If you've got a whole range of MSF's, Shimmer Bricks, various shimmer/highlighting powders, Irridescent Pressed Powders, Sheer Shimmer Powders or frosty blushes you don't need these.  The lighter shades are a subtle shimmer which is nice, but a thousand other products that most of us have already do the same.  The only one I could see purchasing was Soft Flame.  It's a frostier Flirt & Tease.  But I think $21 for that tiny jar is a rip off.  Just my personal opinion.  I vowed to give them another glance, but the more I think about it, the less likely it is that I'll change my mind.


----------



## makeba (Nov 18, 2007)

i would like to see someones photo having used the product please.!! that way it would give me an idea of what it looks like.


----------



## user46 (Nov 18, 2007)

so i got the studio lights today in SmoothSpice. yea, this product is love. i'm definately getting a backup one of these days. GREAT great product.


----------



## blazeno.8 (Nov 18, 2007)

Yeah, I also just picked up Smoothspice today.  I really like it and wish they could make a concealer with this consistency in the perm collection.
:'(


----------



## greatscott2000 (Nov 19, 2007)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *Twinkle_Twinkle* 

 
_It's supposed the illuminate the under-eye area, where a lot of us have dark circles.  I like it because I can stop using my expensive Px Custom Blend concealor under my eyes, and if you think about it, there is nothing under the eyes that we really need to conceal, just brighten.  

Anyway, greatscott, I haven't tried the YSL product, although I wondered over to the counter when I was in Nordstrom.  They had three shades, they all looked really light to me, but really creamy.  I guess there is a Toffee shade, but for some reason it wasn't on the display.  I think, just from what I saw, that the YSL Touch Eclat might be (i.e is probably) nicer, however, at less than half the price, the MAC will definately do 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





.    You also get more product, .17 ounces versus .1 with the YSL.  It's nice, but probably not as nice as the YSL, but I think most of us feel that way about a lot of MAC products versus very high end beauty lines.  It depends on what you're willing to pay for it I guess.  In conclusion (this post is getting longer by the second) I'd say that generally I'm not a huge MAC face-product fan, excluding the blot powder and concealor, but I like this product, and I'll proabably be hoarding more.  That should say a lot.  

Side Note, for any Px addicts, I wonder if they could Custom Blend a concealor that did nothing but illuminate rather than conceal...?  Hmmm_

 
I'm a bit disappointed that  YSL's Touce Eclat #4 is not readily available at all Nordies. This Saturday I was going to pick up another and they didnt have it in #4 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




. Though I did test my #4 against the Studio Lights Smoothspice and YSL was a bit more opaque ( i guess you get what you pay for) but I still think that MAC is a steal and I would get it- just for the fact that the color is readily available at every counter ( I hope YSL is listening/reading).
As far as the color/tone, on my hand- they were pretty much the same color.
I wish that the Studio Lights does well enough to go Perm, other makeup lines have these higlighting products in their regular products.


----------



## lsperry (Nov 19, 2007)

Here’s my review from the “Of Beauty” discussion (Color Collections) -- 

 Quote:

   Originally Posted by *lsperry* 

 
_I got 3 beauty powders and “smoothspice” studio lights! Smoothspice reminds me of YSL Touche Eclat Radiant Touch Highlighter; except this one highlights better on me than the YSL one does…..And it’s much cheaper than the Touche Eclat (which is now $39.50!). I’d much rather pay $14.50 for this one……Loving it!

I’m an NW45. When I saw my MA today, who is an NW50, she was wearing “Dancing Light”. I couldn’t believe it…..she tried it on me and I loved it. I got Dancing Light, Sunspill and Soft flame (which has enough color to double as a blush as well as a highlighter).

I’ve never used MAC’s BPs and was excited to try them. To me they are better than the MSFs. They are sheer and very forgiving if you use them w/a heavy hand. She convinced me to get the 183 brush, but really, you don’t need it. I tried them out w/the 183 and 188 and both works great. 

I know I’m gushing about these powders but they are a miracle
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




….I love the subtle, slight shimmer-effect they give. They are perfect. I am so glad they released this collection to a counter near me so that I could try them out. I couldn’t take a chance ordering these on-line, sight unseen.

You cannot go wrong when you apply these; unlike some MSFs which can leave a glittery-mess on your face and make you look oily. These are almost ethereal looking. Maybe someone here can make a recommendation for you.

These BPs will definitely be at the top of my list for the "What was MAC's Best and Worst of 2007" thread._

 
Here are some swatches I did:
Soft Flame, Loverush Blush, Sunspill and Dancing Light applied heavily over Smoothspice SL:





Soft Flame, Loverush Blush, Sunspill and Dancing Light applied heavily over Smoothspice SL:





Soft Flame and Dancing Light BPs over NW45 SFF SPF15:





And I must say, I use YSL Touch Eclat quite regularly and, to me, it's a watered-down version of MAC's SL. I like MAC's product better.


----------



## User40 (Nov 28, 2007)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *KeshieShimmer* 

 
_What colors are you all getting and what shade are you in MAC?

Thanks_

 
I'm NC20 to NC25. I ordered Dancing Light BP and Skin Lure Studio Lights. I checked with the MA on LIVE CHAT and she confirmed those shades would be great for my skin tone.


----------



## makeupprincess (Nov 29, 2007)

I purchased Studio Lights in Smoothspice, I'm NW45. I love it. It makes my skin tone glow. I will be purchasing two backups tomorrow.


----------



## Kaycee37 (Nov 30, 2007)

I'm Nc-45 or C-6,7
I got one of these today!!!  Studio Lights...Love it!!
I hope they make it "perm"


----------



## mochabean (Dec 2, 2007)

I'm an NC42 and got all 6 of the beauty powders. Really, all of the beauty powders look good on any skin color! I can pull off all of the different shades. As for the Studio Lights I use "Sand". I like it a lot. Definitely brightens my under eye area. I use it under my eyes, bridge of my nose, brow highlighter, and above my cheekbones. Then I dust the beauty powder over the areas I use the studio lights. It gives my face a clean glowy look. 

Also the Studio Lights are pretty easy to apply. You can dab with your fingertips. Or use the 222 brush to blend the product in. I like to use my fingertips better. But either way is fine.


----------



## aziajs (Dec 2, 2007)

I tried the studio lights and didn't get the fuss.  The MA placed it on the high planes of my face - along the top of my cheekbones, bridge of my nose, chin, etc.  I couldn't see it.  It made no difference in my appearance.  Maybe I needed a lighter shade.  I didn't try it underneath my eyes and the MA didn't suggest it for use there because she said that it really didn't provide any coverage.


----------



## MACa6325xi (Dec 2, 2007)

I saw this at the counter and the MA said that you use it along with concealor. I'm looking for products that do everthing in one shot. I don't have time to use this and other things too. Maybe it will be at a CCO in a few months and then I will buy it.


----------



## Twinkle_Twinkle (Dec 2, 2007)

Did she apply Smoothspice?  Because having seen pictures of you, I would go with something lighter.  But then, if you don't like it, maybe ya just don't like. 

 Quote:

   Originally Posted by *aziajs* 

 
_I tried the studio lights and didn't get the fuss.  The MA placed it on the high planes of my face - along the top of my cheekbones, bridge of my nose, chin, etc.  I couldn't see it.  It made no difference in my appearance.  Maybe I needed a lighter shade.  I didn't try it underneath my eyes and the MA didn't suggest it for use there because she said that it really didn't provide any coverage._


----------



## aziajs (Dec 2, 2007)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *Twinkle_Twinkle* 

 
_Did she apply Smoothspice?  Because having seen pictures of you, I would go with something lighter.  But then, if you don't like it, maybe ya just don't like._

 
I don't remember her telling me the name of it but I think that you are correct.  It was Smoothspice.


----------



## MelodyKat (Dec 2, 2007)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *aziajs* 

 
_I don't remember her telling me the name of it but I think that you are correct.  It was Smoothspice._

 
I am not diggin them. They changed the formula. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 They said they are supposed to be closer to the formula or texture of the Touche Eclat.....meh.

I like the old ones better.


----------



## makeba (Dec 3, 2007)

i picked up Studio Lights in Sand and used it this morning and i really like it. I used my concealer first and then put a coat of the studio lights on and noticed a big difference. i dont really like the texture of the product though becuz i feel its a bit to thin.


----------



## SulkingBeauty (Dec 4, 2007)

I LOVE IT!!!!! I bought a beauty powder, which is fab... But I really love the Sand Studio Lights... I love the low coverage, high reflective nature of it. I really don't see the point of it if you don't buy a light enough shade. And for such a thin formula, it has great staying power. When I remove my makeup after work, it's still there! It's too bad that it's not part of the permanent collection.

Love it, love it, love it.


----------



## User40 (Dec 5, 2007)

I just got my order of Dancing Light BP and Skin Lure Sudio Lights. I can't say enough about them. I LOVE them both!

Skin Lure blends perfectly into my NC 20 to 25 skin and I like the thinner formula because I use it under my eyes and don't want a thick, heavy look and can build the color if need be. 

Dancing Light gives just the right amount of shimmer and an overall glow. I think this shade would be beautiful on any skin tone. 

Hope that helps!


----------



## blazeno.8 (Dec 5, 2007)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *aziajs* 

 
_I tried the studio lights and didn't get the fuss.  The MA placed it on the high planes of my face - along the top of my cheekbones, bridge of my nose, chin, etc.  I couldn't see it.  It made no difference in my appearance.  Maybe I needed a lighter shade.  I didn't try it underneath my eyes and the MA didn't suggest it for use there because she said that it really didn't provide any coverage._

 
I can understand why she doesn't like it if she's a coverage person.  They're supposed to be lighter (coverage wise) than Mac's other concealers.  I think they're supposed to be more of an illuminating concealer than an all around full coverage multipurpose concealer.


----------

