Originally posted by: Deadtrees
Yes, it's done by many photographer but not like that. Why do you think all of those photography (equipment) sites make a great deal about Dymanic Range, tonal response of cameras? Because a good camera doesn't make images like that.
As many pointed out, the picture looks quite terrible.
As I said, yes some of the shadow detail on the dog was lost. The background is of no consequence in this photo. Actually darkening that somewhat makes the subject stand out more.
There is only so much that can be done with a JPG image which is both improperly exposed and has the subject out of focus. The sharpening was to attempt to correct the focus issue, and it works decently well. Unless you're pixel peeping that is. Generally the sharpening methods I use are best used for prints. On a monitor if you're zooming in it may not look as if it helped, but it does. Also if you are viewing a resized image in your browser, it will look worse due to the way browsers resize web photos. View both images in a proper image editor or viewer, at 25% on your monitor. If you printed both of those images, mine would look better.
The original image is somewhat washed out. I adjusted and brought some of the color out. This process is partially responsible for some loss of detail in the shadow areas as I was also trying to fix the exposure. Of course, the detail in the lighter areas is improved. If you left it alone, you have less detail in the light areas in the original photo - I just decided to improve the detail in the lighter areas at the expense of the darker areas, as in my opinion it looks better doing that than the other way around. If you notice, the nose is not the focal point of the photograph, so again in my opinion it is acceptable trade off to restore some detail to the dogs coat of hair vs. being so focused on the shadow detail in the nose and in the background (which is irrelevant anyway).
So, before just saying that something is "terrible" you may want to actually provide a reason why you think that is the case. Go ahead and critique it all you want, I don't care. But at least show some semblance of thought went into your statement, otherwise you don't really come off very well.
Your major complaint seems to be dynamic range/loss of shadow detail. Explain why that, in this particular photo, is the most important element in regards to its composition.