Image Hosting Review: Readers Recommended 15 More Services

    After publishing the first 2 articles on 30 image hosting sites, readers recommended links to more than 10 hosting sites (14-15), almost all of which were worth considering. I publish the test results of 11 hosting services (the rest had to be weeded out).
    (31.03) 4 more hosting were added according to the results after publication, total in the table - 15 hosting.

    A table of 15 hosting sites, continued by readers links.

    We formulate briefly the requirements for choosing a hosting for quick publishing.
        (The words “better” mean those characteristics that are not regarded as flaws.)
    1) the ability to work without authorization ;
    2) all PNG, JPG, GIF graphics are transmitted without distortion and “optimizations” (an animated GIF may be the exception);
    3) allowable weight of at least 1 MB (preferably 2); allowable sizes of at least 1500px (better with an area of ​​at least 15MP);
    4) self-removal - only if there are no views for more than 3 months. (better year);
    5) the limit on the number of pictures is 100 (better unlimited);
    6) there is a preview (at the end of the table - a couple of exceptions for the sake of exoticism);
    7) without intrusive advertising; without obscene photos on the viewing pages;
    8) source files are downloaded from the computer without the help of installed client programs;
    9) in the future - sorting the list taking into account reliability, stability (it is better if they withstand high loads).

    As before, the table is sorted according to the results of research and checks of the quality and convenience of services. The best (subjective assessment) - at the top, the weakest in functionality and reliability - at the bottom.

    Testing was based on the same 6 images described in a previous article. In each row of the table are shown: link to hosting , direct links to test images stored on hosting, preview(thumbnails) on them are also pages for viewing pictures. In the column “Notes” - a description of the work and features of the service: what is good for him, what is bad; the name of the reader who suggested considering the service and a link to the place where the service was mentioned (signs "##"). Below we will (again, subjectively) compare a number of hosting services from the first articles and from this table. (As usual, traffic on clicks on links 4, 5, 6 is about 1 MB . These pictures are needed to test the storage and quality of large images on different services. Links 4, 5, 6 with “Preview” captions are usually 5-50 KBa. )

    1 2 3 4 5 6
    preview 1 2 (3- missing) 4 5 6
    page 1 2 3 4 5 6
    Download from 1 to several files. In addition to images, it accepts flash movies (* .swf). Own short signature in preview or dimensions + weight (or without signature). There is a possibility of own inscription in the Watermark style with adjustable transparency, size, color and place of the font.

    I did not show a preview of the animated gif, but the gif itself was saved in a direct link. It doesn’t convert GIFs at all, therefore it gives a link for publication with textual content. The preview of the 4th picture was huge: 150x1790, 260 KBa. Compressing PNG in a preview is not a failure (20 KBa at 150x180), but, as usual, 3 times worse than JPG. In HTML, it replaces the extension with a graphic (* .png, * .jpg). There is no removal. No registration (in general). (How it compresses with signatures and resize was not checked.) In the interface there is a mixture of Russian and English. Links contain a file name.

    Judging by the functions, it should take 3-5 place in the general table. But the signature on the viewing pages suggests that the project is amateur Russian from 1 person. (Conclusions about the future, therefore, early to do.)

    LeeMiller , ##

    1 2 3 4 5 6
    with file text 2
    preview 1 2 3 4 5 6
    page 1 2 3 4 5 6
    Short links. There is a link with the file name. Text without HTML codes, only BB code. 4 types of direct links. There is an FF plugin and a downloader in Ruby. You can work.
    Gives data at night slowly. The group download preview looks decent ( screenshot ), but there is no gallery. Rating 80%.

    usr , ##

    1 2 3 4
    preview 1 2 3
    page 1 2
    gallery 1-4
    Group (flash) download. If the width is more than 970 pixels, it asks whether to compress or not. The download group displays in the gallery (preview up to 240px). 3 links for galleries, 3 links for individual drawings. Editing: comments (displayed in the form of cylinders; it is better to watch - like their logo), cropping, resizing to arbitrary sizes. A title (text to view) and a description (other text) are added. The picture changes weight (PNG is getting worse by 20%, JPG is doubling!) [Big minus].
    GIF animation doesn’t transfer (loses) [minus], the pictures are displayed in the background pictures; not clickable, hard to copy and with distorted sizes. Total, with the display of undistorted drawings they have problems. In what has already been done, everything is competently and excellent (conditionally, because in some places there are errors of balloon tips). They need to seriously debug or issue a simplified working version for use. Rating 60%.

    panig , ##

    1 2 3 6
    preview 1 3 4 6
    page 1 3 4 6
    Multiboot The size of the preview is customizable. It can be inscribed with dimensions and weight or its own. Size may decrease, 5 gradations or any; JPG compression quality is set. The preview is made by a rather uncompressed size (11K for 150px, JPG) and poor anti-aliasing quality when compared with others. 5 texts. Within a week (by cookie), you can delete and view the downloaded images. The maximum image area is 25 megapixels (5000x5000, for example).

    n0s , Grady - ## , ##

    1 2 3 not accepted 4 6
    preview 1 2 4 6
    page with texts 1 2 4 6
    page of viewing 1 2 4 6
    The PNG preview is very wasteful: up to 220x175 pixels., 67 KBa, when the original is 37 KBa. 6 texts of links; text is not automatically highlighted. Jpeg preview is normal. The preview has an inscription (dimensions, weight); no appearance settings. There are Linux scripts for downloading images. Does not accept animated GIF from the 3rd test - an incorrect answer in the form of a white page. No batch upload. Rating 45%.

    inkvizitor68sl , Gorthauer87 - ## , ##

    1 3 4 5
    preview 1 4 5
    page 1 3 4 5
    Group loading. Copying by group (but not gallery). Separately - 5 links. Wasteful PNG up to 155px, 47K. No direct links. Max. weight 10 MB. Declared: unlimited storage, display, unregistered registration. Download archive up to 30 photos up to 5 MB each (zip, rar, tar, tar.gz, gz, tgz). Rating 45%.

    Setti , ##

    1 3
    preview 1 3
    page - no
    There is no view page (no business model). Preview 190px, 25 KB, PNG. Multiboot Adjustable preview size. The inscription sizes on the preview. I didn’t digest the test of the “4” picture (a long screenshot), it doesn’t take large pictures (they warn about that no more than 4096). Group loading does not spoil due to individual failures. When downloading - do not forget to delete the checkboxes "Reduce" for each picture and in the general settings.

    T_Moor , ##

    1 4 5
    preview 1 4 5
    page 1 4 5
    Changes the weight of the complete PNG file (1, 4, 5) by + 10%, without changing the size ("optimizes"). The rest is of high quality. Preview 200px, 24 KB, PNG.

    tsm1 , ##

    1 3 4 6
    preview 1 4 6
    page 1 6
    page with texts 3 4 6
    (It's ) No settings, deletion, registration. There are only 3 types of pages with extremely simple content. 5 texts for inserts (or 3 if the picture is small and without a preview for this reason).

    (Among the stated rules, there is such an absolutely true: “Shelf life: forever *)”, with a note:
    “*) may be changed in the future.” Which, by the way, does not inspire confidence in other rules.)

    Akrus , ##

    preview 1
    view 1
    The quality of the preview is poor. Just the case when PNG24 compresses with a bang (4K), but the quality is nowhere worse. Reduces the size if it does not fit in the window, and you have to guess to click on the picture to view the full one (small remark, but the viewer can easily think that it is in that quality that he sees it, you need to look. No caption: click to view full size .Only a “hand” for a click, it’s unknown where it leads. Other hosting companies sometimes lead to such a click on their website, so the viewer will not try to click again.)

    Mihass , ##

    1 4
    preview 1 4
    page - no
    Some "puncture" they have with usability. Looking at colored texts, you need to guess first click on “150” in the purple row to be able to get a preview, and then only “Select and Download” ( screenshot ), the download goes immediately after selecting the file. If without a preview selection, then after sending ( screenshot ) we will see the compression in HTML. But even with the preview, we see the same shrunken HTML, not the preview. Design of dubious taste, very amateur. The plus is that everything is in 2-3 clicks. Inscription. Decrease 7 gradations preview. 6 texts. Delete link. Date added. Successful compression and PNG quality in previews (150px, 15K). No viewing page - how will hosting costs pay off? (HTML will probably be introduced under the PNG extension.)

    1 6
    preview 1 6
    page 1 6
    Files - up to 1 MB (small). Preview with a width of 200px, ZTP - in the worst traditions, 80K per preview. 4 text to insert. 4 gradations of reduction in size or without it - displayed when viewing. For management, photos are collected in one internal gallery. Rules not published. In some places they use flash, but everything can be done without it - there are HTML duplicates of file uploads. Some usability flaws (rules, reporting restrictions). Rating 20%.

    Snarker , # description , an overview of Habré

    1 2 5- triple weight increased
    preview 1 2
    page 1 3
    Size limits - no less than 100px, no more than 5000px. Preview 150px; PNG - 25 KB, Jpg - 18K (many). Text ads with the words "porn" and the like. Compresses pictures, increasing JPG by 80% -200%, PNG by 10%. All the time you need to remove the inscription on the preview (does not remember the settings in cookies). Many minuses, even very much - at every step.

    Full , ##

    1 3 4
    preview no
    page 1 , 3 , 4
    A simple service with a publication in 3 clicks. Provides only a link to the watch page. No preview. Replaces .html with .png.

    Softovick , ##

    1 4
    preview no
    page 1 4
    HTML - with the extension of the graphic file. 3 texts. No preview.

    huze (author), # copyright description
    Various kinds of unsuccessful hosting in terms of selection conditions.

    preview 1
    page 1
    Saves any files, but for pictures there are the usual features of photo hosting, for other files - their own options for viewing or playing. Changes the type to JPG with all the consequences. If you do not set a password (after downloading), apparently, it gets into open immediate viewing. Storage up to 30 days (default 5). Description, commenting, tags. 7 texts for copying. (It is clear that it is not interesting further, but it is shown as hosting all files for a short storage time.)

    DeNnEr , ##

    preview no
    page - no
    Bad name because at the beginning of the word ad ... all banner cutters work. By its properties and functionality, it can be figuratively described as “extremely lazy,” that is, the user leaves all work. Gives 2 texts for copying: direct BB code and direct link. There is no talk about any amenities, even the “Download more” link is not (instead of it, you have to guess that the “OK” button works). In addition, it can store arbitrary files up to 100 MB for up to 30 days; nothing is said about the deadlines for the pictures. Size up to 1 MB. (This is probably a simple technical service for a certain narrow group of people that has

    come to public knowledge .) 404666 , ##
    ( article on Habré )
    The functionality is good, similar and somewhat better than Picamatic, but without authorization (with hidden authorization by cookies) they allow you to upload up to 10 image files, with authorization - up to 60, then charge.
    If both tables are joined together, then all hosting by rating would be lined up right now (sites from the second table are indented to the right):
    picamatic. com

    Keep4u.Ru (banner) (under-advertising) (without preview) (without preview)

    The next step in orientation among the hosting companies could be to build a table of properties where all the attributes will be formalized and classified. To make it easy to recognize and highlight those hosting services that have the desired property, and then, by the importance of the property among others, choose alternatives for publication. But maintaining the relevance of such a table is a long and not a manual matter. Better yet, the remaining hosting services will be published faster and provide a relatively complete comparison of features.

    The hostings that were proposed by readers in the previous article and did not appear on the list were checked by me, and the reasons for the failure were necessarily indicated in my comments there. Basically, this is registration, advertising or conversion of source files (from PNG to JPG).

    Of the most common problems with the quality of hosting, we see inability to do PNG previews of effective size. There are probably technical reasons for this, especially with the creation of previews in PNG-8. Some services circumvent this problem by compressing previews in JPG. In second place is the problem with animated GIFs, in third - limited image sizes for processing. Still there are those services (not among the ones considered) that decide that the benefit for the user will be squeezing pictures. In the case of a photo, it can be, but not in the case of screenshots, maps and schemes.

    I hope that the comparison will be useful to both consumers of service products - users, and its manufacturers - service developers. Test cases clearly show what problems (some of the problems) can occur when trying to save them.

    UPD 31.03: according to the feedback in the comments

    , the following hosting services were added to the article table today:,,,; rating levels of about 60-30%, i.e. not the worst of them all; failed in quality.

    Also popular now: