Coloring up the grey & highlights

Personally, I think it sounds like a bad way of doing it. Dying your hair is damaging, then dying again with another dye is also damaging. But to get the lift from the dye (dyes aren't made to lift dyed which is where this hairdresser is right, but it isn't impossible) then it seems to me like it would have to be a high lift dye. Just doesn't seem a good idea to me. It's obviously possible if that's what they've been doing. Doesn't mean it's the best thing though.

I would think the best way of doing it would be to do the red and brown highlights at the same time as the dark brown using foils.

I don't know what to tell you. Every hairdresser has done it this way & it's worked for at least the last 10-15 years & I'm pretty sure they did the brown first & then the highlights afterward or at least at the same time, but I doubt they separated out the hair that ONLY required the highlights b/c I have grey there. How would red cover grey?

You are against dying & yet your hair is full of color? LOL, I'm confused.

You are against dying & yet your hair is full of color? LOL, I'm confused.

No. I against bad practice and unnecessary damage when dying. Of course in not against dying. I have literally no idea how you would think that's what I'm saying.

I also said obviously it did work, but it's just a bad way to do it. Dye isn't made to lift dye. It's made to lift natural pigment in hair. Not dye. It can have unpredictable results when you use dye over dye.

I have no idea what you're saying about separating out the hair that required highlights because you have grey there. I'm not sure what you're answering that I said.

Red covers grey in the same way the brown does. The peroxide lifts the cuticle and the dye slips under.

You asked a question and I answered it in the best way I can. There's no need to get angry with me as you appear to have. The hairdressers you've been to in the past are not using a great way of doing it and the new hairdresser is wrong saying it won't work. They're both wrong but for different reasons.

Sounds like your new hairdresser is trying to prevent damage to your hair from double processing.
If it were me, i would foil the highlights in at the same time as the base colour/lowlights.  That way you are only processing once. Doing a solid colour first is just easier, not better for your hair. if you wanted the highlights in any colour other than red it wouldn't work

Janine I'm sorry you think I'm angry b/c I'm not. I was confused by what you said. Now you've explained yourself again & I get it.

And I was just telling you how it's been done for years, not trying to argue with you.

Not one of the previous hairdressers explained ANY of this to me, so I was shocked when it was even brought up & all I'm trying to do is learn as this is all new to me. Shocked & pissed that it's suddenly being brought up.

Is it common practice for hairdressers to tell their clients this?

Pixie - Ok, so to be clear what I hear you saying, the hair that will be highlighted should NOT be colored in brown first. Correct?

Again, the red showed up bright & vibrant & so did the light brown, the red faded & the light brown is still pretty much there, so I'm not sure why you are saying that any other color won't work.

Or maybe you mean the light brown is a low light?

And does it make a difference if I'm using natural hair color? Or is the principal still the same?

Thanks

Well, yeah, you did come across as angry and sadly it wouldn't be the first time someone got angry when something is confirmed to be bad, so I get a little defensive sometimes. Sorry.

Natural hair color? What is that exactly? Most things that claim to be "natural" are using fudged meanings of the words and they don't mean what people think they mean.

"Pixie - Ok, so to be clear what I hear you saying, the hair that will be highlighted should NOT be colored in brown first. Correct?"

Yes. It will be dyed at the same time though. This is what I was trying to say in my first post about what they can do.

I'm trying to find a good video for it, but I'm struggling today. This is the best I can find

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dcz4LVa9UnY

So, instead of what they're doing in this video, they'd dye all of the hair. But weave out sections as they're going to dye red and a different shade of brown (I'm confused if they brown they add after was lighter or darker). So, all of the hair would be covered in foils rather than just the highlights. Hopefully that makes sense.

You can use this method with all kinds of dyes.

And she's saying the brown won't work because of the time it won't. It's possible they didn't use a dye for that though. They might have used a very mild bleach, which is still a bad way of doing it, but would be more likely to work than dye.

No, my whole head wasn't in foil. They put the color on first (the dark brown), then did the foils.

Normally it was just red highlights, but this last guy used both red & the light brown which I REALLY liked as no one has taken it upon themselves to be innovative that way before.

The only thing is I don't remember if they had me under the dryer, then washed my hair & then did the foils or they did it all at once.

My memory is failing me so I can't remember, but I have a feeling my hair wasn't washed first. And the thing is I don't remember them separating strands of hair first either. Putting large portions in clips, yes, but strands, no.

I'll see if I have time to watch that video.

Natural hair color has less peroxide in it or something. I don't know, all I know is that several hairdressers carry it now. I can't stand the VERY toxic stuff.

Thanks

No, my whole head wasn't in foil. They put the color on first (the dark brown), then did the foils.

I know, I know! I understand that's not what they did. I'm saying that's what they need to do and they need to do it at the same time as doing the base colour.

Natural hair color has less peroxide in it or something. I don't know, all I know is that several hairdressers carry it now. I can't stand the VERY toxic stuff.

Yeah, that's exactly what I mean. It won't use less peroxide. You add peroxide to it. It might have no ammonia or something. That'll make it less damaging. But more natural? Nope. It's all pretty much natural anyway. Most chemicals are far more natural and naturally occuring than people realise. I've been told by loads of hairdressers that a dye is "natural". I've looked into the ingredients and it's all the same stuff as usual. Usually the stuff that is considered very toxic is perfectly normal. Everything is toxic in a big enough dose. Water will kill you if you ingest too much, and it's a lot less than you might think! They'll just use slightly different chemical names that sound better, but it's the same stuff said a different way. Like water can be H2O as we all know, but also called Dihydrogen Monoxide. It means exactly the same thing, but ask most people what it is and they won't know. There are less damaging dyes, like ones with less ammonia, but the natural thing is a bit of marketing more than anything else because people like "natural" these days. Marketing people don't really care if they're effectively fibbing a bit and it's as good as meaningless.

The only thing is I don't remember if they had me under the dryer, then washed my hair & then did the foils or they did it all at once.

This is extremely important. If they did it all at once then it's an entirely different matter.

So, did they actually dye the hair once. Rinse it out. Dry it. Then add the red and light brown.

My memory is failing me so I can't remember, but I have a feeling my hair wasn't washed first. And the thing is I don't remember them separating strands of hair first either. Putting large portions in clips, yes, but strands, no.

Also important. If they were leaving pieces out that they weren't dying, then they were dying those pieces red, then it isn't what you've been saying. Or at least, it's not the way it comes across in the way you've explained it. This would be why the last hairdresser said it was impossible. Again, it isn't impossible, but it's not an effective way or the best way.

Yeah, that's exactly what I mean. It won't use less peroxide. You add peroxide to it. It might have no ammonia or something. That'll make it less damaging. But more natural? Nope. It's all pretty much natural anyway. Most chemicals are far more natural and naturally occuring than people realise. I've been told by loads of hairdressers that a dye is "natural". I've looked into the ingredients and it's all the same stuff as usual. Usually the stuff that is considered very toxic is perfectly normal. Everything is toxic in a big enough dose. Water will kill you if you ingest too much, and it's a lot less than you might think! They'll just use slightly different chemical names that sound better, but it's the same stuff said a different way. Like water can be H2O as we all know, but also called Dihydrogen Monoxide. It means exactly the same thing, but ask most people what it is and they won't know. There are less damaging dyes, like ones with less ammonia, but the natural thing is a bit of marketing more than anything else because people like "natural" these days. Marketing people don't really care if they're effectively fibbing a bit and it's as good as meaningless.

So it's less ammonia then & you I will just have to agree to disagree. People always use the "water can be dangerous too" example when they aren't into anything natural & are trying to prove a point that makes no logical sense to me. Exaggerating to such an extent just makes me not want to listen.

I'm a holistic person & I know for a FACT that natural things are more healthy than toxic things. That is overall across the board. Yes natural things can be harmful, but we aren't talking about eating poison ivy or poisonous fish here. That's just stupid.

I went to a hairdresser in Detroit once & the girl literally burned my scalp with whatever she was using. The last 3 times I've gone for all natural color (or let's say MORE natural), that hasn't happened.

I do agree with you that there's a lot of scams out there when it comes to the holistic industry, but I'll take that chance rather than have my scalp burned & then have tons of my hair fall out. Not to mention the smell is horrific.

This is extremely important. If they did it all at once then it's an entirely different matter.

So, did they actually dye the hair once. Rinse it out. Dry it. Then add the red and light brown.

Considering I've been to different hairdressers I can't be certain, but this last guy I do remember going under the dryer & not being finished. Meaning, I didn't walk out the door right after the dryer, but most of the hairdressers cut after the color, so that doesn't mean anything.

I'm pretty sure that each time I was under the dryer, foils were in my hair b/c it's uncomfortable to sit under the dryer with them in & there was no 2nd drying.

So no, I don't think it was a 2 step process.

Anyway, you are still confusing me, so let's just leave this as it is. Thanks for all the info you & everyone else gave me, at least I understand some of the different options now.

Take care

The water thing isn't a wild example, it's a very true example. You might think it's exaggeration, but that doesn't mean it is, and it's not. It's a perfectly valid example. It only takes drinking 6 litres to kill you. Someone smaller than an average man it'll take less.Seeing as I've seen many gurus recommend you to drink 4 litres a day, it's not a big stretch to it killing you.

This "I went to a hairdresser in Detroit once & the girl literally burned my scalp with whatever she was using. The last 3 times I've gone for all natural color (or let's say MORE natural), that hasn't happened" is more about the hairdresser than anything. A bad hairdresser will burn you with whatever they use, a good one won't.

And that's the last I'm saying on it. I don't really care, it's your choice. Ask for advice though and I'll give my opinion if I feel someone doesn't really understand what's going on.

Considering I've been to different hairdressers I can't be certain, but this last guy I do remember going under the dryer & not being finished. Meaning, I didn't walk out the door right after the dryer, but most of the hairdressers cut after the color, so that doesn't mean anything.

I'm pretty sure that each time I was under the dryer, foils were in my hair b/c it's uncomfortable to sit under the dryer with them in & there was no 2nd drying.

So no, I don't think it was a 2 step process.

Well that's what I mean. If it wasn't actually a two step process then it wasn't what you were telling the hairdresser it was, or described to us. So he thought the same as us. That they were doing the brown and then going over it with the highlights. You've accidentally over complicated what happened. It's easily done when you're not really sure what's going on, but it's very important when you're trying to convey what you want to a new hairdresser.

How you made it sound.

1 They put in the brown dye over all of your hair.

2 They washed out the brown dye, and then we'd assume they dried it even though you didn't say that.

3 They added more colour as highlights.

This is a very bad way of doing things and that's why we and the last hairdresser reacted so negatively. It sounds like this isn't what was happening and that's the confusion.