It looks cool. You did a great clear job. But this is just copying the photo layer by layer and it's sad. I do not know why this can be attributed to the icons. Icons need to simplify with adapting forms for scalability. No offense but this is not an icon, just a copy.
No doubt there is a lot of skill gone into this, but what if I want to see it from the other side, the back, or the top? What if I want to animate it? The time spent on this could have been spent on a 3D model, indeed this would probably only take an equally skilled 3D modeller a couple of hours to make (including rendering), so I'm afraid to say in my opinion this is time wasted on a static image, despite the skill involved. It looks like a 3D render, so why was it not made as a 3D render? It's like spending 30 hours sculpting grated cheese using a fine scalpel, but the same effect could have been achieved in seconds with a cheese grater.
First thing's first, I'm not here to pick a fight or anything so please don't take it that way. Just want to throw you these thoughts:
Absolutely, a 3D render would make sense for something like this. But it seems you haven't thought about this from all angles, pun intended. What if this guy doesn't know how to model in 3D? What if he doesn't have the software or time to learn it if he did? Sure he could take time to learn 3D, but then so could you. And any reason you yourself have for not learning how to model in 3D, he could quite easily have the same reason. The point is he used the tools he does have and knows how to use.
Just taken a look at your gallery (awesome shots btw, gonna have a closer browse after this!). I could say something similar to you though. Why do you use the camera you have when you could buy and learn how to use an even better camera which gives much better results? And what if I wanted your shots in a huge crystal clear quality res so I could do some photo manips with them? You would answer that it's because you didn't intend on giving out free hi-res shots or that you can't afford that better camera. Exactly the same thing as this guy not intending on giving away a 3D editble model with full rigging and animation support. It's an icon and it is what it is, just how yours are what they are.
As for you comment about cheese, well you could simplify that situation even further by just buying a pack of ready-grated cheese But that would take the fun out of making your own, albeit a longer and more challenging route.
True, all true, however there are free and quite inexpensive and very capable 3D packages out there, and as this guy already can afford (or has acquired) Photoshop it shouldn't be too much of a leap to get a good 3D modelling and rendering set up, and the skills learned for Photoshop are transferable, and he obviously has the capacity and patience to learn.
I know my limits, I do not have the patience to become this good in Photoshop or 3D. As for resolution, this is an end-product, there is no need for any of the pictures on display to be any larger than necessary - just big enough to fill the average web browser is sufficient for most things; also, a number of my shots were taken with digital cameras that did not have a high resolution. If I put up an image as stock I make it as high a resolution as I sensibly can (there comes a point where there is no more detail to be had), non-stock photos need only be suitable for display on screen in a web browser so are not hi-res.
Buying a better camera would not necessarily yield better results - the best results can still be obtained using film and that can be done using a £10 SLR equally as well as it could be with a £500 SLR, the difference in price with film or digital SLRs usually comes down to build quality, shutter reaction time, and lenses, all of which are non-critical for normal shooting. Photography is still very much more about an understanding of light than it is about technical wizardry. Do you think that I could have purchased a better dark room to make my prints? Used more expensive developer chemicals? In truth there probably were none better than those that I used, Ilford chemicals and paper were/are recognised world-wide.
Hey. Thanks for the reply. Yeah I understand you man. My main point was simply that he wanted to create a static icon, not a 3D model with included source files. Just as you create your pics at a browser size instead of releasing hi-res versions as stock. That's not what you wanted to do, and he didn't want to create a 3D model. It is what it is basically.
Anyways, gotta say I love your gallery, mostly because of the shots taken in yorkshire (I live in east yorkshire myself ^_^). And again, I didn't mean to jump on you or anything, it's just nice to have a proper discussion once in a while with somebody. I'm tired of seeing people here shitting on a piece of work with no explanation as to why. So thanks for that
I may just +follow you, quite interested to see where your travels take you next!