Remember in my last post here, where I decided to finally compare the Revolution Conceal and Define Foundation with their new Conceal and Hydrate Foundation? Well, I thought for today it was only right to do the same thing - but with the Concealers this time! Same concept, same format of comparisons - just this time, between of course the Conceal and Define Concealer and Conceal and Hydrate Concealer! Cause just like I said in my previous post comparing the two foundations, whilst there are a lot of similar things between them, there sure are some major differing factors too. Let's get straight into it...
- PACKAGING - Starting off again with the Packaging and again, it's pretty similar! The new Conceal and Hydrate actually has the exact same packaging as the Supersize Conceal and Define (which I handily had in my stash already as I only buy that one now rather than the 'regular' Conceal and Define). However, this one's not called 'Supersize' this time, which makes me think this size will be the only one they'll be releasing in this formula - which I personally think's great as you get more product for an even better price too! Nevertheless, the packaging is exactly the same. Same rose gold lid that you unscrew to reveal a large doe foot to apply your product with! The doe foots are the exact same size and length from the lid - everything - honestly, the only thing that's really majorly different is the label. And like the foundations, whilst the C&D has a fully rose gold one, the C&H is pale pink with a rose gold trim. So it's still pretty easy to distinguish which is which! Other than that, I guess the only other thing I've kind of noticed is that with the new Conceal and Hydrate you can feel it kind of 'lock' when it's fully shut - so you know it's properly closed. A very subtle but welcome update which hopefully they'll extend to the Conceal and Define packaging from now on!
- FORMULA/CONSISTENCY - Moving onto what's actually inside - there are some definite, noticeable differences here, as you would expect! And just like it was with the foundations, the C&D is much thicker in consistency whilst the C&H is slightly thinner. However, it's important to point out that it's not as much of a difference as it was with the foundations - the C&H is still fairly dense and viscous in texture, it just glides on the skin a little more I guess! And again, like the foundations, the scents are dissimilar too - and actually match up well with their matching base aswell. C&D is slightly fruitier and the C&H more of a traditional 'makeup' scent that's a a little more 'chemically'. And like I said before, whilst I do admittedly prefer the fragrance of the C&D, neither are that noticeable when actually applying on the skin to really bother me too much, so that's all good!
- SHADES - Like with the bases, Revolution claim these two concealers to match up identically when it comes to the shade range. So, not only do they both have an awesome 50-shade-strong gradient, each shade within that collection is supposedly the same as in the other formula. But, like how I found when comparing the two foundations, these concealers certainly vary slightly. Again, I picked up the same shade in the new C&H that I found to work well for me with my old fave C&D - 'C1' - and though the shades are very comparable and close to each other, I wouldn't say they match up entirely. 'C1' in the C&D is ever so slightly darker and more yellow-toned, whilst 'C1' in C&H is ever so slightly lighter and more neutral. So, there's not much in it really and honestly, when you actually apply and use them on the skin it's not even really noticeable and at the end of the day, both shades in both formulas work perfectly well for me - which is the main thing, right? And having now compared both of the foundations and concealers, I would say these shades match up better than the foundations do. The foundations are still very comparable again, but I would say the concealers match up the closest!
- APPLICATION - Onto how they both apply and work on the skin when actually put into action! Like I said earlier, both have the exact same large doe foot set-up which, as I've mentioned many times before - I really like. Super quick and easy, glides across the skin nicely, all of that kinda jazz. Coverage-wise, whilst I would say the Conceal and Define is slightly more full-full coverage from the get go, the Conceal and Hydrate is still pretty close. It's perhaps just more of a medium-full in one layer and needs that little extra application to boost it up to the same level as C&D - if you get what I mean? Basically, both offer the same amount of amazing coverage - just one of them needs a little more to get it there! They both blend in super easily and easily in no time at all - as always, I used my dampened RT Sponge to do so - and despite the pretty intense, full coverage they both provide, they both feel rather lightweight and comfortable on the skin too.
- FINISH - Whilst both either apply straight away as or build to a full coverage, I would still say the Conceal and Define looks slightly 'heavier' on the skin. I say 'heavier' as honestly, it doesn't look bad (cakey, dry etc.) at all - it just appears slightly more apparent on the skin than the Conceal and Hydrate does. Kinda like how I described the finish of the matching foundations really! You can definitely tell by the finish how different the formulas are. C&D kinda dries down a little, even before you go in and actually set/bake it into place; whilst C&H stays more dewy and 'wet' on the skin, only mattifying at all when you set/bake it. I also find C&H creases more in the time between me blending it in under my eyes and then going in to 'bake' with my loose powder; whilst C&D creases only a little. It's not a big deal as I'm used to re-blending most concealers out again before baking and it's kinda to be expected with one being more luminous and the other more matte, but thought it was worthy of a mention nevertheless - C&H certainly requires that little more of a re-blend than C&D! Both work well when set with a powder - whether I traditionally set my general face with a pressed or properly 'bake' under my eyes/around my smile lines with a loose. Neither cake up, separate or loose coverage at all - they just completely mattify and lock into place! And whilst they do mattify, they never look dry or cakey in anyway. Admittedly, the C&D does look slightly more matte after being set - but that's only to be expected considering it is more of a demi-matte finish to start with and the C&H is more radiant and glowy! All in all, I really like the finish of both, but perhaps for myself personally I think the C&D is great for my general face, whilst the C&H is great for the under-eye area where I like things still with great coverage, but just slightly less heavy and a little more moisturising. Maybe that's how I'll be using the two from now on...
- WEAR-TIME/LONGEVITY - Of course, we have to discuss possibly the most important part - how well they both hold up throughout the day/night. And you know what? They both perform pretty damn well! Neither loose coverage, crease, cake up, separate - whatever - they just stay looking basically as first applied all day long. Full coverage, smooth, poreless and so on. I think the C&H does look less dry and matte come a full day of wear, simply due to it being more hydrating and less matte to begin with - but the C&D doesn't look anymore matte than it began being, so I can't really complain. They both stay feeling pretty comfortable and lightweight to wear - the C&D slightly more heavy feeling, but again it is thicker in texture and more matte and full coverage in one go - and all in all, I'm pretty pleased with both of them! Like the foundations, I really like and will continue to wear both of these concealers. They both work well for me and my skin-type, both wear pretty impeccably and both have the basics of what I look for in a good concealer - they just have slight differences, in a good way! And honestly, when you actually set or 'bake' them both down, they look and perform very, very similarly on the skin.
No comments:
Post a Comment