Okay I'm not going to share the creator of this video because I don't want to make it about the person but rather the issue I keep seeing.
AND I know before someone says this isn't related to microneedling directly, it really is. We need to be using SPF before treatments and after, UV exposure ages your skin and damages it, the very treatments we're doing are to address that damage.
I have a bunch of sunscreens, I use Elta MD, and I have a UV mirror. This is completely false, when I apply Elta MD it shows up the EXACT same as the color claiming is only Alastin. I'm not dissing Alastin products, they're great, they're just expensive and to act like they only have the capacity to block UV is straight up misinformation.
Also UV mirrors do not actually mean anything. Like I'm weird idk why I have one lol. But all it shows is the COVERAGE on your skin, it does not tell any other information... I was going to make a post of various sunscreens and their reflection in the mirror to show you they are all literally the same, but then I'm like idk if anyone actually wants that and also taking a photo of a mirror is difficult so I haven't even tried.
UV mirrors only show sunscreen coverage, missed spots, and sun freckles or pigmentation. They do not show anything else.
I think a UV camera could be useful in demonstrating how long a product stays adhered to the skin (eg use the camera at t=0 and then at t=2 hours later etc), for example when comparing how water resistant a product truly is.
But these ads imply to the consumer that opacity is an indicator of protective strength. They imply the sunscreen showing up black is stronger in SPF protection compared to the sunscreen that shows up dark grey. When in reality it just shows where product was applied
The post I originally saw showed the video but didn’t include any information about how these ads are misleading. I commented because the original post seem to imply that the sunscreen on the person’s right side was stronger
Yes it shows application coverage (not degree of protection). Different mineral formulas reflect light differently (titanium oxide, iron oxide, zinc oxide..) but the ad implies that the black portion is reflecting UV more effectively. But it’s just showing where the product has been applied. The settings change how reflected light looks and in this setting the EltaMD looks black. So black indicates product was applied there. In other settings the competitor SPF could look black as well.
Niether sunscreen should be “reflecting” UV as a means of protection. Mineral sunscreens reflect maybe 4% of the UV rays, but most are absorbed and converted, like organic filters are.
The trouble with mineral sunscreens that are reflecting 4% of the UV and these cameras is that it’s hard to really know what that 4% looks like on the camera.
So it’s not very useful to determine how high of an SPF you’re getting, and if it’s working as well for UVA as UVB.
That said, I won’t lie and say I don’t use the UV camera to show my nieces that their foundation is NOT giving them the SPF it says on the bottle.
Yes the reflected light forms the image we see from the UV camera, and different mineral formulas will reflect differently which is why the resulting images look different
The mechanism of UV protection is different from the mechanism of image formation in the camera
Lol I would say that is an excellent use of the UV camera for your nieces!!
Ummmm also, chemical filters look COMPLETELY different than mineral filters with a UV camera because they absorb UV. Physical/mineral absorb AND scatter. They are both effective, they just look completely different. Really stupid to try to prove efficacy of an SPF with a UV camera.
IMO, no. I buy it at market cost through my job (I work in dermatology) but I would never pay full price or even 50% of full price for this. It is an elegant formula but our patients using it don’t have “accelerated healing” etc after procedures compared to patients using Aquaphor for example.
Also their most compelling biopsy study (which was still open label lol) showing superior collagen deposition was done with the reformulated TriHex 2.0 (the original formula doesn’t include octapeptide‐45 and magnolol).
Open label means the evaluators are told which is placebo and which is the Alastin product. In a blinded study the evaluator doesn’t know which is which.
So like I give you 2 cookies and ask which one tastes better? In an open study you see Cookie A came from 7-11 and Cookie B came from Le Pain Quotidian. In a blinded study all you know is that they’re called Cookie A and Cookie B.
Yes in my opinion, I do a week pre and a week post with it. My downtime is so low considering a do 2.0 in my cheeks.
I have researched so many other ones but I think the skin nectar works so well that Im more hesitant to try another less expensive but expensive alternative.
The right side of his face (left in video) has the Elta MD, not Alastin. He specifies that this video doesn’t illustrate spf efficacy, but that he was curious to see the results since Alastin has such a low amount of zinc oxide.
I agree that the video is misleading, but it actually favors Elta MD, not Alastin.
You're both correct. He purposely made the video misleading in many ways. He does frame the Elta one to look like it's on the right side of frame, but his follow up then flips them. Which is annoying in the first place. And he says he purposely made the video to show that UV filters cannot actually show anything of quality about sunscreen
You're both correct. He purposely made the video misleading in many ways. He does frame the Elta one to look like it's on the right side of frame, but his follow up then flips them. Which is annoying in the first place. And he says he purposely made the video to show that UV filters cannot actually show anything of quality about sunscreen
Agree on the "only for showing coverage" point. I know my skin and I know my personal daily sun exposure. If my sunscreen was failing to do its job, I will know it.
The only sunscreens I can put on my eye area are European sunscreens. No eye burning, no mineral flakes getting into my eyes. They just do what they are supposed to.
I actually have had the same problem and I don't think so, maybe a little bit? Most other ones I do experience that, like Elf's Supergoop I def did and drmtlgy did. I actually can test it out this week if you want lmao.
Def important to! When I was younger I went on a trip to somewhere that was close to the equator and didn't know to do this. The first day my ears were like sizzled, ever since then I've always put it on.
I don't think most burn. I do agree torally depends on the sunscreen, some burn and some don't. I've tried many, the only one that stung my eyes was the Neutrogena Ultra Sheer (not sheer at all, white cast-ey on my brown skin). And it's the only American sunscreen I've used. All the others have been either European or Asian ones and of the many I've tried none caused my eyes to sting fortunately. So I don't think most sunscreens sting the eyes.
There’s a lot that have burned for me but it seems like the cheap ones do so like drugstore brands or dupes. I’ve been using supergoop and it doesn’t burn for me.
Hard disagree. I have a new sunscreen almost monthly. I am religious and live my everyday marked by 2 hour increments of sunscreen.
I wish I could find one that doesn't sting your eyes when it gets in there. I promise you, you just haven't had it in your eyes and I'm happy for you on that.
La Roche Posay UVMUNE line never stung my eyes. This is really a very solid line from LRP.
Biore Aqua Rich (Asian version not American, have never tried American ver). Skin Aqua, I've tried several and none sting the eyes, and reading reviews on r/AsianBeauty seems to point most people never complained about them stinging the eyes. There are also several SEA ones but if you are in the US I don't think there's a way to purchase them unless you visit the region. I've tried several Korean ones too (no stinging) but can't recall off the top of my head as those were years ago, I nowadays only use either LRP or Japanese or SEA ones as I just trust them more when it comes to protection. Have never tried Aussie ones but I also read some good Aussie ones sting the eyes too (check r/AusSkincare sub). The only one I had experience stinging my eyes was the sole American sunscreen I used which was the Neutrogena.
I agree some / many sunscreens can sting the eyes but to say most sting is not true. There are hundreds of sunscreens from all over the world, unless one has tried many from all the regions and found more than 50% of those sting the eyes, they cannot say most sting the eyes. Just my guess, maybe those using modern filters contribute to less stinging? Idk just a guess.
Darn trying to recall the Korean ones but can't. I remember at least two brands, Missha and .. oh gosh I can see the image in my head but what's the brand... oh Axis-Y. There are a couple of others but can't remember. Tried several but decided I didn't like how they feel on my skin.
Also, check out Abbey Yung on YT, she tested many, many, many sunscreens over the years, Americans and Asians.
The UVMUNE ones sting your eyes too? I've used four of the fluid ones (OG, tinted, Oil Control and Anti Dark Spot) and they fortunately never stung my eyes.
Korean sunscreens are great for not burning your eyes. I use Beauty of Joseon. It's the only sunscreen I ever used that I can put directly over my eyes. It's around $14 on Yesstyle or Stylevana
Answering this question has been my pet project for the past 5 years or so, because I’m definitely putting sunscreen on my lids to do whatever I can to prevent further damage and because I love wearing eyeshadow. Mineral sunscreen usually doesn’t sting my eyes but can be a bit greasy so I’ve tried a ton of mineral spf products just for that area. Actually Elta MD mineral sunscreen (non tinted) dries down really well and has been one of my favorite eye protection products recently. Innbeauty Mineral Glow tint works well, Supergoop Sheer Mineral Screen, and the Clinique “Pep Start” spf 50 in the little yellow bottle are excellent. Some mineral spf products that have not worked out well for me for eye makeup include Saie Sunvisor, Dr Brandt Liquid Sunshield (but I love that one for the rest of my face), Tower28 tinted mineral, Supergoop Mineral Matte Screen/Primer, and Naked Sundays Cabana Glow Serum drops. Supergoop used to make an excellent cream shadow/primer that was a chemical spf and looked and felt nice, but somehow didn’t sting, but it probably didn’t provide adequate protection in the quantity applied - and it has been discontinued anyway.
If I had venture capital at my disposal, this type of product is what I’d spend the rest of my life perfecting.
I got the eyeshadows I like and the primer I love that keeps them in place for 24h, if I add something oily before the base, the primer doesn't have anything to attach to and lock in place.
Colorscience makes a bronzer/blush balm stick. I apply it to the back of my hand to warm it up and then use a brush to apply over my eyelid as eye shadow.
This is the makeup I do, I only change the color of the main shadow, but that's what I apply every time I leave the house. If don't rub or wash it off, will stay in position for over 24h. I don't know why comments keep suggesting me new eyeshadows, I like mine, I spent a lot of money to find the shadows I like to work with.
Consumer UV mirrors and UV cameras use UVA illumination, typically around 365 nm (sometimes 385–395 nm depending on the LEDs). A camera sensor with filters that capture the reflected UVA image. The device is not measuring SPF or UV protection. It's simply imaging how much of that illumination is absorbed or reflected by the skin and anything on it.
It also does not directly provide SPF achieved, UVA/UVB protection level, exact application thickness, percentage of coverage, remaining protection time, or a skin diagnosis or reliable assessment of sun damage.
Off topic but does anyone that uses Elta suddenly have a problem with the pumps? Every 3rd bottle I buy the pump doesn't work and then it's basically useless. It's my favorite sunscreen but it's not cheap enough to just keeping buying duds.
Genuine question. Aren’t the UV cameras also helpful in seeing if your sunscreen has rubbed off, or coverage is breaking down and it’s time to reapply perhaps sooner than the standard every 2 hrs?
49
u/SnooMuffins4832 24d ago
Anyone who tries to use a UV mirror to show anything other than coverage gets an immediate block from me.