What don’t I need? More foundation. What am I instantly interested in? New foundation launches. So when I got the news that MAC were launching a new foundation, or should I say “face colour”, called Next to Nothing*, I was keen to try it—especially so I could compare it to Face and Body.
I’ve written about my high-end and affordable foundations lately, but I omitted MAC Face and Body from both blog posts, because I wanted to dedicate an entire post to how much I loved it. It’s my preferred daily foundation, and it’s also pretty much the only foundation I use in my makeup artist kit. Of course, I never found time to do an entire post about it, but in summary: I love Face and Body.
Face and Body is lightweight and can be worn very sheer on the skin, so the big question about MAC’s new Next to Nothing Face Colour launch is how well it holds up against that.
I’m looking for a natural finish, not too matte or dewy, that evens out the skintone without looking like I’m wearing a lot of makeup. It sounds like a lot to ask, but it’s what Face and Body offers, so it’s not impossible.
MAC Next to Nothing Face Colour comes in nine shades ranging from Light to Dark Deep, more in line with the shade range of Mineralize Skinfinish Natural than the exacting NW and NC shades of most MAC foundations. It makes sense—a sheerer product gives a bit more flexibility colourwise, especially with undertones.
The shade naming seems a little unusual. Despite my fair skin and it being the depths of winter, my shade match is Medium (I was sent this colour by the MAC PR team, and their guess was a good match).
Let’s start with my bare face, entirely makeup-free. If we’re going to see a victory for the newcomer in the MAC Next to Nothing vs Face and Body match, the product will leave me looking like a better version of this—I’m thinking a slight evening-out of texture and a dialing-down of that redness across my cheeks and nose.
In the photo above, I have applied MAC Next to Nothing on my left (the right side of the photo).
I’d forgive you for thinking I’d posted the same bare-faced photo twice.
I think, if I look closely, that the redness in that cheek is very slightly dialed back. But I might be seeing that because I’m looking for it, and hoping that’s what it’s doing.
And in this photo, I’ve applied MAC Face and Body in C3 on my right-hand side (the left in the photo). It’s visible, a little bit because the shade is a wee bit dark for me this time of year, but also because it has provided a really good natural-looking coverage in my red areas.
The finish still looks skin-like—hydrated, textured, not perfect in tone—but a big improvement from the other side of my face.
And to finish up, here’s a picture with Face and Body on the left of the photo, Next to Nothing on the right of the photo, and both sides set with MAC Mineralize Skinfinish Natural in Light. The MSF makes the Next to Nothing side look a bit more even in tone, but that’s because the MSF gives a little bit of coverage itself.
The powdered result is still a bit too close to my natural face to justify me having used two products. I get that the product’s called Next to Nothing but truthfully, it might as well be called MAC Nothing.
It might be a worthwhile product if you have relatively flawless skin already. In fact, I can see Next to Nothing being useful if you want to impart a slightly deeper skin tone (as in, a fake tan for your face) and don’t want any coverage, but the real-life application of this wouldn’t be that common.
I probably don’t need to tell you that MAC Next to Nothing won’t be replacing MAC Face and Body in my personal use or my makeup artist kit any time soon. It’s a novel product, but for me it just doesn’t offer enough coverage for any practicable purpose.
Which do you think is better comparing MAC Next to Nothing vs Face and Body? Have you tried MAC Next to Nothing? How about MAC Face and Body?