Suggestion: have another look at the way images work on Substack. It seems to me that your inline images (which I consider thumbnails on this platform) ought to lead to much bigger images when clicked. This is the way it seems to work on most other 'stacks.
One thought: perhaps you are overthinking it, and making a smaller image to upload for your posts. Maybe, instead, upload the large image and let Substack handle the scaling for the post, and then the linked image ought to be that size.
Not that big a deal since you're good about link to the the sources of the images, but I thought I'd toss it out there anyway. HTH
Thanks. I'm writing posts with Blogger and publishing them there first, at my 12-year-old blog https://yastreblyansky.blogspot.com/, where the picture formats have size limits. To get a proper Substack image I have to go back to the source and save it a second time, and frequently I'm too lazy and just take the Blogger version along with the text. I didn't realize you can't embiggen those charts by clicking them, that's no good.
I was a Blogger blogger for many years, and I never did quite figure out how they managed images. (For most of the time, I ended up hosting the images on Photobucket and pulling them in from there. Worked great until Photobucket got sold and new mgmt wanted $$ for hosting.)
But I do remember one thing: you could upload a big image to Blogger, and then specify some smaller dimensions for it to present as, when it was inline in your blog post. And clicking on it would result in the visitor seeing the bigger image in a new window/tab. So, possibly something to double-check.
I will say that I while I haven't posted to my old blog in many months, I'd bet tall dollars that you are not limited to the sizes of the images shown in this 'stack.
Very nerdy stuff, and again, not that important. But fwiw ...
Right. I guess the technical way to say it would be in Blogger, the published image is a file with dimensions coded onto it, but when I copy-paste into Substack I'm just taking a photo of it, not getting the image file. You can definitely customize image size in Blogger using the html, but I'm not fluent enough to do it easily, and it's too much like work. The relationship between Substack formating and html is a total mystery to me, I can't manipulate it at all.
Jeez louise
Suggestion: have another look at the way images work on Substack. It seems to me that your inline images (which I consider thumbnails on this platform) ought to lead to much bigger images when clicked. This is the way it seems to work on most other 'stacks.
One thought: perhaps you are overthinking it, and making a smaller image to upload for your posts. Maybe, instead, upload the large image and let Substack handle the scaling for the post, and then the linked image ought to be that size.
Not that big a deal since you're good about link to the the sources of the images, but I thought I'd toss it out there anyway. HTH
Thanks. I'm writing posts with Blogger and publishing them there first, at my 12-year-old blog https://yastreblyansky.blogspot.com/, where the picture formats have size limits. To get a proper Substack image I have to go back to the source and save it a second time, and frequently I'm too lazy and just take the Blogger version along with the text. I didn't realize you can't embiggen those charts by clicking them, that's no good.
I was a Blogger blogger for many years, and I never did quite figure out how they managed images. (For most of the time, I ended up hosting the images on Photobucket and pulling them in from there. Worked great until Photobucket got sold and new mgmt wanted $$ for hosting.)
But I do remember one thing: you could upload a big image to Blogger, and then specify some smaller dimensions for it to present as, when it was inline in your blog post. And clicking on it would result in the visitor seeing the bigger image in a new window/tab. So, possibly something to double-check.
I will say that I while I haven't posted to my old blog in many months, I'd bet tall dollars that you are not limited to the sizes of the images shown in this 'stack.
Very nerdy stuff, and again, not that important. But fwiw ...
Right. I guess the technical way to say it would be in Blogger, the published image is a file with dimensions coded onto it, but when I copy-paste into Substack I'm just taking a photo of it, not getting the image file. You can definitely customize image size in Blogger using the html, but I'm not fluent enough to do it easily, and it's too much like work. The relationship between Substack formating and html is a total mystery to me, I can't manipulate it at all.
Perfectly understandable. It should not be that hard, in 2024, to deal with images in a blog post or newsletter.