Estée Lauder double wear foundation

[Brightandbubly]

Is this a good foundation for mature skin? I do look a good coverage

@Movingnotmoving my mistake is not posting the picture of her without makeup that was in the same article. My mistake sorry.

The foundation has made the lines around her eyes about 10 years older looking and she has lost all the radiance. Her natural skin is actually really good but this foundation has make it look papery and dry and much older.

Found them. Here is her with and without the foundation. She looks so old and dry with it. It's the opposite of what a good foundation should do

I don't think she looks terrible at all and isn't Double Wear the best selling foundation in this country? EL must be doing something right. I think some people like a more made up look, some people choose a barely there look and some people wear no make up at all - I'm glad we're all different and feel confident and happy with our choices, there's no need to be rude.

@boopboopbidoop

what a difference the comparison photo makes.

I didn’t think she looked bad in the first one, but when compared to her beautiful glowing skin it’s striking how the DW hasn’t had a positive impact.

Who's being rude? Showing public images that show the result of the makeup isn't being rude.

You've accused people of not being able to see and said the lady looks terrible!

The woman actually has beautiful skin. So plump and radiant and not very lined. No real pigmentation issues. She certainly doesn't need a full coverage foundation. It's a shame that people feel they look better with thick plastered on makeup when they have such beautiful skin. Even someone with more blemishes would benefit from more targeted coverage. Literally no one looks better with a thick face of foundation. No one. Makeup professionals work to make makeup as skin like as possible. Not to cover every inch in a layer of product. It ages everyone terribly

But the lighting, angle of picture and level of zoom are different for each photo. It's not possible to make a comparison from this, is it?
From some angles I have no eye shadows. From other angles I could advertise climbing in Cheddar Gorge.

You can mix it with illuminator, goes on smoothly then.

I do not understand the pic of the woman above, what’s wrong with her? She looks pretty good.

She looks terrible relative to how beautiful she naturally is. That is not rude. The woman has beautiful skin. The foundation makes her look terrible. Not her. And it's true. People are not seeing. Perhaps they struggle with their confidence and think they have terrible skin so they think by covering it all they will look better. They think it looks good to have a thick full face of makeup. They don't realise how much it ages them. Most people look much more radiant and beautiful with a targeted approach rather than covering their whole face. It's sad to see women so disappointed with the way they look trowelling on more and more foundation in the hopes it's going to help. They are doing exactly the wrong thing. Watch someone on YouTube like Lisa Eldridge. DW really doesn't do many women justice

@Peasnbeans But the lighting, angle of picture and level of zoom are different for each photo. It's not possible to make a comparison from this, is it?
From some angles I have no eye shadows. From other angles I could advertise climbing in Cheddar Gorge.

To be fair, both photos are
well lit. You can see forehead and under eye lines on both. In fact if either has been taken at an unflattering light it's the naked one. The light is given her deep shadows which is always the worst. But she still looks better in that photo.

I think that's a prime example of the wrong colour being used and zapping the life out of you. She doesn't need a heavy makeup she has perfect skin.

I’m in my mid 40s and find this one too much, definitely ages me. Love Nars and also Bobbi Brown serum foundation - both keep skin looking really fresh and young - buildable coverage.

@boopboopbidoop i agree with you!
Beautiful woman but I think the foundation has made her skin appear quite dry and crepey, I think it does this to a lot of people tbh but some people feel a lot more confident with it on - it really doesn’t matter of course in the grand scheme of things, it’s just like with everything, no one foundation (insert every other makeup/skincare item) is going to suit everyone but it doesn’t mean you can’t or shouldn’t wear it if you like it.

Nope, sorry I'm not convinced. I look far better with my make up on (maybe older but definitely better and I'll take that). I like DW because it applies well, doesn't transfer and I don't end the day with patchy make up - I look the same when I come to take my make up off (except for lipstick) as I did when I put it on, that's what is important to me. I have come to the conclusion, having worn make up for 45 years, trained as a beauty therapist and had many MUA's apply my make up, that a fresh, glowy make up and longevity are mutually exclusive. I choose long wear every time, it suits my lifestyle better. I don't want to look good for an hour and then progressively worse every hour thereafter, I want consistency.

I'm 46, used this for over 20 years now and tried a few others but always go back to ELDW.

No. It's taken away any natural contour. It's hidden any natural luminosity in the skin. It's great for covering skin conditions as it's a bit lighter than dermablend but it's VERY heavy

I've tried both and definitely prefer the futurist hydra rescue.

I used to wear DW in my 20's and 30's, was the only foundation that stayed on my skin

Tried it again recently, aged 59, post menopause, thin dry skin and the start of wrinkles and it was dreadful on me. Ghost looking, settled in the creases

Im trying the EL futurist skin tint serum. Im finding this gives a much more dewy healthy look, and doesn't settle in the creases. Seriously a tiny tiny amount is all thats needed to blur everything yet I can build up coverage on my red forehead

I'm 44 and have used ELDW for the last 10 years and it's still the best foundation I've ever used IMO. My skin is drier than it was when I first started using it but I use a facial oil first and then it blends on beautifully. It's the only foundation I've ever used (have tried loads from L'oreal, Mac, Bobbi Brown, Nars, Chanel etc) that truly lasts a whole day.

I have a lot of high colour and broken veins. If covering those splotches makes my skin look 'flat' I'll take it. Some of us feel much more comfortable with those issues concealed, and being told we're stupid and wrong and look awful is tiresome.

I used it for years … had terrible customer service on the Estée Lauder counter one day …, so went to Dior that day instead …. Now use Dior and it’s so much better

I think it's more that we know you could get the same longevity and^^ a skin like finish whilst covering what you want with some newer formulas. No one thinks you are stupid. We are just wanting to suggest people try some of the newer formulations. They are so skin like and not flat at all but still last 16 or 20 hours. I'm not sure why people get angry at new information

But no one is forcing anyone to do anything

Does it come with a pump? I’m rejecting all non-pumps these days!

tarte, now sold in Sephora, is very good for dense coverage that can be sparingly applied.

my new game changing favourite is the Selena Gomez rare beauty primer which is a bit like a better version of becca opal primer (now discontinued). Mix a blob in with flat foundation and it gives a nice glow. (No point putting it on then covering with matte foundation as defeats object).

@boopboopbidoop which new formulas last 16 to 20 hours like DW and give a glow?
I'll definitely try it, I'm not angry at new information, I embrace it, it's why I love S & B on Mumsnet.
I'm always happy to try new things, I'm just stating a fact that I have never found a foundation for me that lasts and doesn't transfer like DW but I'm definitely open to recommendations.