Clarins is a makeup brand that tends to stay under the hype radar, but for some reason it’s very appealing to me. I don’t know if it’s because they market their makeup as very skincare conscious, or if it’s because of their very fresh and young aesthetic. Might be the later giving that I’ve been a 23 year old girl for the past 8 years. Either way, their Milky Boost foundations really caught my attention and I decided to try them both.
I got the same shade in both, 02 Milky Nude. Clarins first came out with the Milky Boost liquid makeup, so I’ll start with that one first.
Clarins Milky Boost Review
The Milky Boost is described as a “skin-perfecting milk” – which sounds lovely until you overthink the word “milk”, then it gets disgusting. Semantics aside, the product comes out as a whipped white texture (not super runny like actual milk), that shifts into a beige colour as you blend it in. This gimmick isn’t new in the makeup world, but it’s the first time that I’ve seen it with a colour range, and not just in a “universal” shade.
The coverage is light – but a true light, that actually covers up imperfections a bit. With most tinted moisturisers, “light” means “non-existent”. Not this one. When it comes to the finish though… it’s a bit disappointing. I would say it’s a satin finish, not too matte but not too dewy, but the issue is how obvious it looks on the skin.
Usually, light coverage products look really natural and undetectable on the face, but this one is as obvious as a red dress at a white party, and it’s because it doesn’t blend into a smooth, even finish. This looks like the pigment is suspended in the clear creamy base, instead of looking like an even mixture. Like if you poorly mix flour in water. Because of this, even though it feels very moisturising, it accentuates dry patches.
This can be improved with application. I’ve tried three methods, with a wet sponge, my fingers, and multiple brushes, and the winner by a long shot was a large, flat, dense complexion brush, specifically the Dior Backstage Face Brush Nº18. Any other method left me with a lot of streaks, and the wet sponge accentuated the pigment-suspended-in-cream effect. The Dior brush actually increased coverage while making the tinted cream less obvious on my face The brush has to be flat and large though. Round or pointy dense brushes will leave you with a lot of streaks – which again, should not be a problem with a light coverage product.
One thing this has going for it is longevity. It lasts well with no powder or setting spray, even in oilier areas of my face, which is surprising for something that’s supposed to add hydration. And the light coverage does not fade at all! Impressive. It’s not completely transfer proof, but when I remove this after 10+ hours, the product is still very much there.
Clarins Milky Boost Cream Review
The Milky Boost Cream has a mousse like texture. It’s fluffy and airy, but just like the Milky Boost, prone to streaks when applying it to the face – only slightly less. I used the same application methods: a sponge, that required a bit more blending than a typical foundation would so as to diffuse the “stamping” marks from my application; my fingers, that made the streaks harder to diffuse; and several brushes, being that the winner was the same trusted Dior Backstage Face Brush Nº18. This foundation/tinted cream has light coverage that can be buildable to medium with that Dior brush. The finish is very similar to the Milky Boost, more on the satin side, and definitely not one of those super dewy, wet formulas.
I feels lightweight on the skin yet my face felt more hydrated when I removed it at the end of the day. Because of that, I think it’ll work with both dry and oily skin types. It got a bit oily on my forehead at about the 10 hour mark, but coverage was still pretty much intact. So again, longevity is one of its strong points. Count me stunned.
Comparison between the Milky Boost and the Milky Boost Cream
Both foundation have a strong synthetic melon scent, but I can’t detect it when their applied on the face. There are a lot of similarities between the two: both apply better with a large, flat, dense brush, longevity is really good and about the same (10 hours before getting oily, the coverage doesn’t really fade) and the satin finish is also very similar. However, the Milky Boost Cream has higher coverage (while remaining a light coverage foundation) and it’s more moisturising. And most importantly, the Milky Boost Cream, even though prone to streaks, does not suffer from the “pigment suspended in a clear cream” that the original Milky Boost has, so it just looks better on the skin.
Of the two, the Milky Boost Cream is the best one. It’s not perfect, it’s still finicky when it comes to application, but it’s a nice moisturizing option that offers soft but actual coverage. It contains 45 ml, while the original Milky Boost contains 50 ml, and both contain more than a traditional foundation (typically 30 ml).
Would I recommend any of them though? Hmm, meh. I’m not sure. I won’t be repurchasing them, because I have other light coverage foundations that are easier to apply and look better, but it won’t be torture to use them up. And they do hydrate the skin, so I guess I would recommend someone with dry skin to test out a sample of the Milky Boost Cream, because it could be a nice option for them.