>>4451567
>Why haven't I gotten anything better to scan them
Because even for you, a 9000px scan of hair, dust, fingerprints, chips, and scratches on a poorly composed and even more poorly timed photo of a dog has got to be enough.

You are putting out stuff way, way below the standard of other people who use the format. I like dogs, I don't care if you like dogs a little too much, but your photos keep getting worse.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/zboumeester/5823541268
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBOt9DsvUxw