In article ,
Dave Baker wrote:
Well I got the thing set up and tried most of the functions. It prints fine,
scans documents ok but when it comes to photos the scans are absolutely
crap. Dull and full of artifacts, i.e. speckles everywhere. I rescanned a
couple of photos I'd first done with my old 1998 Plustek Win 95 scanner
which sadly won't work with XP and the difference was staggering. So I took
it back to Tesco and got another. Exactly the same. So what does it take to
get a decent photo scanner built in to a printer?

Here's the original 1998 scan already converted to a jpg.

http://www.pumaracing.co.uk/TBs%20Plustek.jpg

Here'e the Canon scan as a full quality bmp file.

http://www.pumaracing.co.uk/TBs%20Canon.bmp

Does anyone think the Canon scan is even remotely acceptable?

Try reducing the resolution of the Canon to the same as you used with the
Plustek. Scanning a print at too high a resolution can produce all sorts
of artifacts.

--
*If God had wanted me to touch my toes, he would have put them on my knees

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.