Skip to main content

making faces :: can't somebody else do it?

i like to keep track of how people find their way here, both because i find it interesting for me and because it also helps me see what posts have the greatest power to draw interest from people who otherwise wouldn't know this blog existed. on such a check yesterday, i noticed a lot of referrals coming from one post.

this post.

i've played around with a number of ways of looking at colour analysis and what works for different people, but i don't know that i've ever done something as clear and informative as what this writer has. beauty bloggers, of course, make great subjects for study as to what works on certain skin tones, because they're constantly trying on all sorts of different things. so it's a great starting point to look at different bloggers wearing different shades and comparing what works the best versus what doesn't.

the post is specifically to do with choosing lipstick shades, but the idea could easily be extended to other items. it uses a slightly different system for evaluating colour than i have, but it's every bit as valid and extremely well explained in the post.

i like that the author makes it clear that going against your inherent colouring doesn't make you look bad, it just doesn't look as harmonious. [i think the high-contrast look from nikkie tutorials is striking in a way that i like and at the same time, the lower contrast look is clearly more at home on her natural colouring.] it's also an excellent object lesson in how appearances can be deceiving: look at all the different skin tones and how those that are closest on the surface can be opposites in terms of what works for them.


so after reading through this article, i have come to one clear decision: playing around with doing your own colour analysis can be fun, but it's actually way easier without being less rewarding when someone else does it for you. like most things in life.

Comments

That post really is informative, but did the writer consult you before using your photos? If not, I think it's a little weird that she went to a bunch of blogs and downloaded photos of other people for her own post without asking first...
Kate MacDonald said…
Actually no, although I have to admit I didn't even think of that until you mentioned it. (I'll even go so far as to say that I liked the kind of "surprise" element, but that's clearly a personal thing.)
Bellyhead said…
That WAS a really interesting and informative post. Very clearly written and illustrated, too.

But to AB's earlier point, I immediately thought about photo copyright and usage. I know temptalia doesn't allow hotlinked photos going to other sites either. Wonder what savvyist's policy is on photo usage.

as long as you're here, why not read more?

fun-raising

no, i am not dead, nor have i been lying incapacitated in a ditch somewhere. i've mostly been preparing for our imminent, epic move, which is actually not so terribly epic, because we found a place quite close to where we are now. in addition, i've been the beneficiary of an inordinately large amount of paying work, which does, sadly, take precedence over blogging, even though you know i'd always rather be with you.

indeed, with moving expenses and medical expenses looming on the horizon, more than can be accounted for even with the deepest cuts in the lipstick budget, dom and i recently did something that we've not done before: we asked for help. last week, we launched a fundraising campaign on go fund me. it can be difficult to admit that you need a helping hand, but what's been overwhelming for both of us is how quick to respond so many people we know have been once we asked. it's also shocking to see how quickly things added up.

most of all, though, the ex…

losers?

just a short time ago, i waxed prosaic about trump supporters who felt betrayed by their candidate pursuing in office the exact things that he said he would. short version: i have no sympathy.

today is a bit different. in the wake of america's bombing of a syrian air strip, in response to a chemical weapons attack by the syrian government, my facebook and twitter feeds were peppered with plaintive shades of "we believed you". these are the people who heard trump say that he wanted the united states to step back and focus on defending its own. indeed, trump did say such things, over and over; america cannot be the policeman of the world. even arch-liberal cynics like me had to admit that this was a refreshing argument to hear from someone outside the paul family, and, could easily have been turned into trump's greatest argument against hillary clinton. [he chose to go another way, which also worked.]

trump also said, repeatedly, that america needed to invest heavily …

long division

after the united states election last year, there were the usual calls for the country to unite behind the new president. that never happens anymore, because, since george w. bush scored a victory in 2004, having launched the country into a war in iraq for no reason, the people on the losing side of a presidential election have been pretty bloody angry about it. democrats hated bush 43. republicans really hated obama. democrats really hate trump.

it didn't help that trump didn't make the typical conciliatory gestures like including a couple of members of the opposite party in his cabinet, or encouraging his party to proceed slowly with contentious legislation. barack obama arguably wasted at least two and as many as six years of his tenure as president trying to play peacemaker before he felt sufficiently safe to just say "screw you guys" and start governing around the ridiculous congress he was forced to deal with. not-giving-a-shit obama was the best president in …