Myself I tried it probably 10-15 years ago on scanned scientific papers (decent scanning quality). The results were disappointing. The manual postprocessing required was not much less than typing it directly. So tesseract became a synonym of "not worth trying" to me.
Maybe things have improved over the years, so I should give it a new try. (No particular use case at the moment, but those tend to appear occasionally.)
Myself I tried it probably 10-15 years ago on scanned scientific papers (decent scanning quality). The results were disappointing. The manual postprocessing required was not much less than typing it directly. So tesseract became a synonym of "not worth trying" to me.
Maybe things have improved over the years, so I should give it a new try. (No particular use case at the moment, but those tend to appear occasionally.)