Today’s post features the two makeup launches I’ve been the most excited about thus far in 2026!
Although I needed to Downsize My MAC Blush Collection, I have owned at least fifty different shades of their powder blushes within the past decade. My first MAC post, which covered nineteen of their blushes, currently has the highest amount of views on my blog. It’s thanks to that post, and the Follow-Up with an additional twelve shades, that I’ve been able to connect with many other people who love MAC’s blushes as much as I do! So, they have a special place in my heart.

I have to shout out NikkifromHR and TheMakeupPen as some of the bloggers I chat with about MAC!

When MAC started discontinuing shades from their “permanent” standard blush range in 2021, I knew it was only a matter of time before they revamped the line, but I had no clue it would take almost five years for that to happen! I also didn’t expect it would be three years before MAC relaunched the Sunstruck Bronzers.

MAC reused the model photos and swatch photos of the older Sunstruck Bronzers in the listings for the newer ones, in addition to them bearing the same shade names in the matte and radiant finishes. So, I don’t think there have been intentional changes to the bronzer colors.

Photo Credit: MAC Germany

Whether intentional or not, my version of Matte Rich Golden is slightly different. So, I will delve deeper into that in the bronzer review section.

The photos and videos I’ve seen, such as this one from lokalekatastrophe, have led me to believe some of the blush shades have been tweaked. Everyone’s version of Desert Rose looks lighter, for example on this reddit page. When I build up Raizin The Roof, I believe it can look pretty much like the original Raizin. However, Film Noir Buff is a muted brown-purple, unlike the original Film Noir that I believe had a reddish-purple tone, like in the YouTube short by CocoaSwatches.
I will do my best to share shade comparisons in the blush review section, but I don’t have access to my full collection anymore.

Skinfinish Colourstruck Blushes in Pony (radiant), Pink Flamingo (radiant), Thanks, It’s MAC (radiant), No Filter (radiant), Velvet Teddy (matte), Cheeky Chili (matte), Raizin the Roof (matte), and Film Noir Buff (matte)

MAC launched with 29 blushes in the Skinfinish Colourstruck line. I did not wish to repurchase shades I already own, so that narrowed down the list of blushes I wanted to buy. I created a table for anyone curious about which shades are completely new to MAC or might only exist in a different form, such as their lipsticks. My research was done to the best of my ability, but MAC has been around since before I was born, so I could have missed something.

Within the standard powder range, there used to be five categories: matte, sheertone, sheertone shimmer, satin, and frost. Now, there are just matte and radiant blushes.

It is said that the new matte version is intended to have a soft matte finish rather than flat. I’ve noticed that the Colourstruck mattes are smooth, but only softer than some of the older shades. The new blushes are a little less pigmented, apply the tiniest bit smoother (depending on which older shade it’s compared to), and leave some kickback, which may or might not be a significant amount depending on what kind of brush is used. Some of my older MAC blushes were hard-pressed and felt rough to the touch. Even without hard-pan, they became more difficult to pick up over time. However, some of my MAC blushes still feel silky and powdery to this day. I would be willing to buy replacements of my older blushes with a rough texture (such as Modern Mandarin and Frankly Scarlet), but none of my hard pressed ones got reformulated.

The radiant blushes are still nowhere near as glowy as the Extra Dimension Blushes. I would say the amount of shimmer is somewhere between the satin and sheertone shimmer level. When I’ve compared the swatches of the radiant blushes to the glowy blushes from other brands, MAC’s doesn’t look as shimmery. It’s only really when bright light is directly shining on my face that the sheen becomes obvious to see. I’ve complained about Gucci’s Glow Blush line not being glowy enough (review coming in perhaps 3 weeks), but I can say MAC’s Radiant Blushes are at least glowier than Gucci’s. Essentially, I view the Radiant line as satins, but it’s possible that the lighter shades could have more pearl in it, if MAC follows the trend in the past of having their frosty/highlighter-like blushes as mostly lighter colors. I would have to see those in person to know for sure.

Pony

I chose to show, in the photo above, how a single swipe of this blush looks prior to being smoothed out (like I did for the Colourstruck group swatch photo). For some reason, Pony picks up in chunks and has to be worked into my cheeks a bit to eventually appear as even looking as the rest of the blushes. By now, the top layer is completely flat, despite it being one of my least used blushes. The debossed “MAC” pattern still hasn’t worn away from any of the others!
I don’t know why this blush is so crumbly, but thankfully it only takes a little bit longer than the rest to blend in properly.

Over the past two years, I’ve been favoring nude/natural blush tones, but I suddenly found Pony very appealing. I can’t recall ever owning a blush this vibrantly pink before, though it does remind me a bit of MAC’s Sweets for My Sweet blush in the Extra Dimension finish.

Pink Flamingo

I still love corals, especially pink-coral over coral-orange, so this was another shade I couldn’t resist. Aside from the blushes I swatched above, Pink Flamingo also reminds me of Nars’ Orgasm X and MAC’s Cheeky Bits Extra Dimension Blush.

This shade and Pony look completely different in swatches, but they’re ultimately both pink blushes. They look similar on me, with the main difference being that Pink Flamingo is a bit lighter and warmer.
That being said, I’m still unable to choose between them, so I’m happy I bought both of them.

Thanks, It’s MAC

I had the hardest time deciding between Thanks, It’s MAC and No Filter. Essentially, this shade is a little more of a yellow-orange brown (as opposed to pink-brown) and it appears lighter than No Filter on my cheeks. I swatched it next to a lot of my warm brown blushes and was surprised how few dupes I could find, but Maiden’s Blush is quite close.
Thanks, It’s MAC reminds me of the Hushed Tone Extra Dimension Blush (that I stopped using in favor of Faux Sure). This is pigmented enough that I can easily see it in person, but it blends in a lot with my skin in photos.

I like this color, but I prefer Benefit’s Starlaa and Suqqu’s Kafuu (discontinued). It’s tied with YSL’s Nocturnal Nude (also discontinued). So, perhaps I could have skipped buying this one in hindsight, but I always feel compelled to buy a dark nude blush when I see one because of how uncommon it is to find one suitable for medium-dark skin.

No Filter

I can see some shimmer particles in the pan, but this blush can pass for matte if I only apply a sheer layer.

Because it’s a little deeper, pink-brown, and easier to see on my cheeks than Thanks, It’s MAC, I prefer this color. I like to think of it as a toned down version of Faux Sure, which is my most used MAC Blush, and just one of the most used blushes in my entire makeup collection! There was no way I was going to pass on getting this shade!

Velvet Teddy

This blush looks so faint in the photos of MAC’s models, so I assumed it wouldn’t show up on me. However, it does, and this is literally my favorite color out of all 29!
The brand describes this as a deep beige. It looks more like a light pink on my cheeks and creates a youthful flush. It was extremely difficult to try and get color accurate photos where the blush can actually be seen. It’s very much visible in person.

In some photos I’ve seen, it looks warm. Some photos it looks cool-toned. On my skintone, it can look warm or neutral. As with most of MAC’s blushes, the undertone of one’s foundation can affect how strongly those tones will actually look. That’s how I’m able to wear some of MAC’s cooler toned blushes without it clashing. These blushes are great for combining into each other to customize the depth and tone. Now that MAC’s blushes are less pigmented than before, they’re even better suited for layering together.

Cheeky Chili

MAC describes this color as, “warm brick red,” which is basically orange mixed with brick red. I expected it to be redder and resemble Burnt Pepper, which remains discontinued, but thankfully there’s also enough brown to keep the color from venturing too far into vibrant territory. Cheeky Chili still pops on my skintone, but isn’t the kind of bold orange that I dislike.

Raizin The Roof

This blush is a great reminder of how tastes change over time. I rarely ever used the original Raizin because I thought it was too deep and bruise-looking on my skintone. I could never figure out why I didn’t like it considering it’s a reddish-brown blush and I typically like those kinds of colors. However, I started using and liking it again just before the Colourstruck Blushes launched. Perhaps if I had the Sonia G Soft Cheek Brush or Rephr Kōyō back then, my mind could have been changed sooner.

Raizin the Roof is described as a golden reddish brown, and it being slightly less red than Raizin is why it initially looks lighter when compared. However, if I build up extra layers, they look nearly identical on me.

I know some people are disappointed that Raizin The Roof isn’t as richly pigmented as Raizin. Raizin used to be one of the most recommended blushes for people with a deep skintone, so I’m sure it’s hard to see changes made to such an iconic color. Selfishly though, I can’t help but be happy because Raizin The Roof is easier for me to use. I really like this shade. It’s also a nice “blonzer” shade to add a toasty sunkissed look across the forehead or bridge of the nose instead of bronzer.

The difference between Cheeky Chili and Raizin The Roof is that Raizin the Roof isn’t as saturated. They both have red, orange, and brown, but Raizin The Roof leans redder. I actually like mixing the two together so that the end result has calmed down the orange from Cheeky Chili, but pops more than Raizin The Roof does by itself.

If I had to choose between them, I would skip Cheeky Chili and just stick with Raizin the Roof. I’m just not as interested in orange, as evidenced by the fact that I left nearly all of my orange blushes behind when I was moving.

Film Noir Buff

I never owned the original Film Noir because it seemed too deep for me and I assumed it would be too red for my liking. However, Film Noir Buff is practically a muted purple-brown! MAC describes it as a “rich warm chocolate,” but those models on their website look like they’re rocking contours. I was thrilled when I noticed it had the potential to be my replacement for the purple contour/blush shade in ABH’s Gradient Blush Kit from 2017. I don’t have a single other blush like this in my collection because of that slight bit of purple. The closest comparison I can think of is the previous version of Dior Rosy Glow Blush in the shade Mahogany. That one had a similar depth level of brown, but also had some red from the ph-adjusting pigment. The tone of red was on the cooler side, but not quite in the same way as Film Noir Buff.

I’m confused as to why they call it “warm” when it’s listed as cool on their social media diagrams. Although Film Noir Buff does have some red in it (as it’s needed to make purple), there’s still some grey to cool it down.

In the photos above, I’m wearing no contour on the left. On the right, I used Film Noir Buff very lightly as contour. On my face, it’s like a muted red, but the depth level enhances the sculpted look. It’s more like a brontour.

It looks very red in these photos on my cheeks, and kind of pretty, but in person it looks like dirt. I don’t like it alone as blush, but it pairs beautifully with Velvet Teddy if I keep Film Noir Buff towards the back and Velvet Teddy mainly on the apples of my cheeks. So, this color is excellent for blush draping/soft contouring.

Some additional things I want to mention about the blushes overall is that the packaging was updated to be flat. They can now be stored flush next to each other or balanced in a stack without that domed lid. It’s more convenient to handle now, but it also looks a lot more generic.

In 2020, MAC blushes used to cost $25 per compact. So, $34 is quite a jump for even less product! In Germany, the full retail price is €34, but I found them less than a week after launch for as low as €25-€29 depending on the shade and retailer. I still find that to be expensive, but it’s a price I was willing to accept. I got some truly incredible deals on my old MAC blushes, so maybe that’s the cosmic tradeoff.

The longevity of the blushes are just as good. They don’t contain parfum. Other than Pony, these are easy to blend and work with while I’m using my regular products and skincare. However, if I’m wearing a gripping primer, a dewy sunscreen that leaves a slightly tacky residue, or some other product that makes my face essentially sticky, then I try to powder my face before applying these blushes. If I don’t do that first, then the blushes adhere a little too well and require more effort to blend.

I find MAC’s blush quality, whether matte or radiant, to be quite good. I do have blushes from other brands that are glowier, more blurring, even more finely milled, creamier and softer to the touch, etc. What has always pushed MAC powder blushes into holy grail status for me has been the shade offerings. Having so many dark-skin friendly options, especially less saturated ones and the variety of nudes, is why I’ve always regarded them so highly. I might be able to get a few of my favorite colors from a single brand, but only MAC has this many! The only other brands that come close are Fwee (though tough luck if you only want powder formulas) and Hourglass (for those who are around my skintone or lighter).

I’m happy with these new blushes, and I recommend them, but they aren’t something anyone needs to run out and immediately purchase. These may just be special to those seeking particular colors that are hard to find in a specific tone or depth.

Skinfinish Sunstruck Bronzers in Matte Rich Golden and Radiant Deep Golden

For those who may not remember, these bronzers launched on the 17th of March in 2023, were pulled two days later, and then made their return a month after. I don’t think the brand ever explained why, and it’s not as though MAC could have reformulated them that quickly before they returned to store shelves. I have more details and theories about it in my original review, but essentially how I was even able to order them was because I could add them to my cart using the quick shop feature. I wasn’t able to add them though the usual means and had just assumed it was a website glitch. Shortly after, the product page was missing, and so I thought perhaps MAC accidentally launched the bronzers earlier than planned. They did not cancel my order, and that’s how I ended up with two stinky bronzers!
I don’t mean that figuratively either. They literally had a terrible odor (like the vomit flavored beanbozzled jelly beans). Since the smell came and went for a while, I was hopeful that the smell would just eventually disappear. Nine months later, the worst part of the stink faded enough for me to be willing to bring one to Germany with me, but my fear of there being something wrong with it (actually rancid, contaminated ingredient, etc.) made me unwilling to use it that often. It felt like I was taking a gamble every time I used it, and the only reason I didn’t throw my original Matte Rich Golden away is because that has been the only yellow-golden bronzer I’ve ever found that was dark enough to show up on my skin year-round. I own neutral bronzers, ones that lean pink, orange, and red. However, all other yellow-golden ones are either the same color as my face (so basically invisible on me) or too light.

Three years later, my old Matte Rich Golden is nearly odorless, but still not 100% free of the smell. So, it’s no surprise that I decided to repurchase it in order to stop worrying about whether or not there is something wrong with it. Unfortunately, the new one is a warmer than the original version. If I keep the application super sheer, it passes for golden, but it looks orange when I build it up. I’m a bit disappointed about that, even though MAC at least improved upon the formula. It no longer darkens like crazy when I swatch it or wear it on top of a dewy base. I don’t see any other performance differences though in terms of smoothness, blendability, and longevity. The old and new ones are equally great, but I still have even better ones in my collection (though at twice the price). If this bronzer leaned more yellow than orange, I’d have put it in regular rotation!

If you’re around my skintone and prefer yellow bronzers as well, I’ve had better luck finding some in cream formulas, but by now they’re discontinued. One that’s still available is the Charlotte Tilbury Beautiful Skin Sun-Kissed Glow Cream Bronzer in Tan, but that is more on the yellow-olive side than yellow-golden.

Matte Rich Golden

*How orange Sienne appears depends on what proportions of the three shades in its pan are used.

I have mixed feelings about this bronzer based on the shade. While I’m happy about the performance aspects that improved, and I acknowledge that the color isn’t overly orange, the shade of the new version isn’t as unique to my collection. This means I won’t be reaching for it over my top ranked bronzers. It also means that I don’t feel like this replaces the old version.

Radiant Deep Golden

I made brush swatches, since the 2023 version of the bronzer darkens when rubbed with my finger.

As for my original Rich Rosy, the depth level was correct, but I didn’t think the color suited me. The only reason I didn’t get Radiant Deep Golden sooner is because I assumed it would look like a highlighter and be unable to bronze me. Unfortunately, mine seems to be inconsistently mixed. Sometimes, the base color is visible underneath all that shimmer and actually bronzes me. At other times, it does look like a highlighter!

The amount of shimmer is less than the Too Faced Sun Bunny Blushing Bronzer and the 2nd version of baked bronzer from Kosas. I’ve considered using Radiant Deep Golden as a bronzer topper to add radiance to a matte bronzer. Unfortunately, it is so hard-pressed that I get annoyed every time I use it. The powder is so stiff and rough that it feels like I’m wiping dirt off a clay tile while trying to get product onto my finger to photograph swatches. The surface is so hard that it feels baked. My natural hair brushes are too soft to pick up much product, and even my dense synthetic brushes require a lot of force to practically dig into the pan.

Even after I stopped swatching this bronzer with my finger, it continued to get hard pan until I scraped off enough of the surface to flatten the top layer. Now, I no longer have hard-pan, but I still can’t use this bronzer with my natural hair brushes. The surface is too tough.

Another strange thing is that this doesn’t wipe off my finger the way a normal powder does on my Makeup Eraser cloth. It grips almost like dried paint! Normally, a few swipes across the dry cloth is enough to clean my fingers between swatches. The exception is when it’s a pressed pigment or dye that stains my fingers. I can’t explain why the consistency of the new Radiant Bronzer is so much worse than my old one. At most, I’ve heard others say theirs is hard-pressed too (such as Audrey Michelle), but so was the 2023 version. It doesn’t seem like anyone else’s is as messed up as my new one. There’s hard pressed, and then there’s this…

Just like eyeshadows that stain my fingers when swatching, I can use a little Bioderma with the cloth to completely and easily remove it. It’s just unusual that I would have to do that with a bronzer that isn’t technically staining (just clinging like there’s too much binder or something in the formula).
Radiant Deep Golden adheres to my face in a way that makes it a little challenging to blend out, but I can at least remove most of it with a dry cloth.

Considering my issue with the blush-half of the Too Faced Sun Bunny Blushing Bronzer and my issue with Tom Ford’s Soleil Bronzer specifically in the shade Panarea, I don’t think I simply got unlucky to have gotten a dud. Something is going on with these Estee Lauder bronzer reformulations!

The bronzers cost $35 in 2023, and are now just $36. That’s about €31 in Germany, but for some reason they are actually €47 ($55) here. I’m not sure why MAC hiked up the price so high for the bronzers, yet didn’t raise it as much for the blushes.
The matte bronzer formula is worth getting on sale, but I absolutely don’t recommend the radiant bronzers. I know some people are loving theirs, and my experience with this botched bronzer is not the norm. However, I still thought the 2023 matte bronzer was superior to the radiant ones back then. I suspect it would be the same for the 2026 bronzers, even if I had a “good” one.

If you’re darker than me with a golden undertone too, I recommend trying Antique Velvet as a bronzer. It has more warmth than Film Noir Buff, and the shimmer in the blushes are more refined than the shimmer in the Radiant Bronzers (or at least it’s more refined than my messed up bronzer).

That’s everything for this week’s post! Thank you so much for stopping by!

-Lili ❤