Review of image hosting: readers recommended 15 more services

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

---

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

We formulate briefly the requirements for choosing a hosting for quick publishing.
(The words "better" means those characteristics that are not regarded as shortcomings.)
1) the ability to work without authorization ;
2) all PNG, JPG, GIF graphics are transmitted without distortion and “optimizations” (except for animated GIFs);
3) permissible weight of at least 1 MB (preferably 2); permissible dimensions of at least 1500px (preferably with an area of ​​at least 15 megapixels);
4) self-removal - only in the absence of views for more than 3 months. (better year);
5) the limit on the number of pictures - 100 (preferably unlimited);
6) there is a preview (at the end of the table - a couple of exceptions for the sake of the exotic);
7) without intrusive advertising; without obscene photos on the browsing pages;
8) source files are downloaded from the computer without the help of installed client software;
9) in the future - sorting the list, taking into account reliability, stability (better, if they withstand high loads).

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

Testing was for the same 6 images described in the previous article. Each row of the table shows: a link to hosting , direct links to test images stored on hosting, a preview (thumbnail) on them and the image viewing page . In the column "Notes" - description of the work and features of the service: what's good, what's bad; the name of the reader who offered to consider the service and a link to the place where the service was mentioned ("##" signs). Below will be (again, subjectively) a number of hostings from the first articles and from this table are compared. (As usual, traffic for clicks on links 4, 5, 6 is about 1 MB . These pictures are needed to test the storage and quality of large pictures on different services. Links 4, 5, 6 with the words "Preview" are usually 5-50 KB. )

Links	Notes
funkyimg.com ') 1 2 3 4 5 6 preview 1 2 (3 is absent) 4 5 6 page 1 2 3 4 5 6	Download from 1 to several files. In addition to pictures, it receives flash movies (* .swf). Own short signature in previews or sizes + weight (or without signature). There is the possibility of your own inscription in the style “Watermark” with adjustable transparency, size, color and font position. He did not show the preview of the animated gif, but the hypha itself was saved in a direct link. It does not convert the GIF at all, so the link to publish it gives with the text content. The preview of the 4th picture made huge: 150x1790, 260 KB. PNG compression in the preview is not a failure (20 KB at 150x180), but, as usual, 3 times worse than JPG. In HTML, it replaces the extension with a graphic one (* .png, * .jpg). Your removal is not. No registration (at all). (It does not check how it presses when signing and resizing.) In the interface there is a mixture of Russian and English. Links contain the 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 an amateur Russian from 1 person. (It’s early to draw conclusions about the future.) LeeMiller , ##
omploader.org 1 2 3 4 5 6 with text file 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 a FF plugin and a ruby ​​downloader. You can work. It gives data at night slowly. The group upload preview looks decent ( screenshot ), but there is no gallery. Rating 80%. usr , ##
picbite.com 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 - asks the question whether to compress or not. The download group displays in the gallery (previews up to 240px). 3 links for galleries, 3 links for individual drawings. Editing: comments (displayed in the form of cylinders; it is better to look like their logo), trimming, resizing to arbitrary sizes. A title (text to view) and a description (another text) are added. The picture changes weight (PNG deteriorates by 20%, JPG - double!) [Big minus]. GIF does not transmit animation (loses) [minus], riki are displayed with background patterns; Not clickable, difficult to copy and with distorted dimensions. Total, with the display of undistorted images they have problems. In what has already been done, everything is correct and excellent (conditionally, because here and there errors of balloon tips exist). They need to seriously debug or issue a simplified working version for use. Rating 60%. panig , ##
fastpic.ru 1 2 3 6 preview 1 3 4 6 page 1 3 4 6	Multiboot. The size of the preview is customizable. An inscription with dimensions and weight or its own can be put. The size can be reduced, 5 gradations or any; The compression quality is set to JPG. The preview makes a rather uncompressed size (11K for 150px, JPG) and a low quality anti-aliasing, when compared with others. 5 texts. During the week (by cookies), deletion and viewing of downloaded pictures is available. Max. Image area - 25 megapixels (5000x5000, for example). n0s , Grady - ## , ##
itmages.ru 1 2 3-not taken 4 6 preview 1 2 4 6 page with texts 1 2 4 6 page view 1 2 4 6	The PNG preview is very wasteful: up to 220x175 pixels., 67 Kb, when the original is 37 Kb. 6 texts of references; no text is automatically highlighted. Jpeg preview is OK. There is an inscription in the preview (size, weight); no appearance settings. There are Linux scripts for loading images. Does not accept animated gif from 3rd test - incorrect answer in the form of a white page. No bulk upload. Rating 45%. inkvizitor68sl , Gorthauer87 - ## , ##
turboimagehost.com 1 3 4 5 preview 1 4 5 page 1 3 4 5	Loading by group. Copy by group (but not gallery). Separately - 5 links each. A wasteful PNG up to 155px, 47k. No direct links. Max. weight 10 MB. Declared: unlimited storage, display, non-registration. Download archive up to 30 photos up to 5 MB each (zip, rar, tar, tar.gz, gz, tgz). Rating 45%. Setti , ##
photoload.ru 1 3 preview 1 3 page - no	The view page is missing (no business model). Preview 190px, 25KB, PNG. Multiboot. Adjustable preview size. The inscription size on the preview. I didn’t digest the test picture “4” (long screenshot), it doesn’t take large pictures (warn about this that no more than 4096). Group loading does not spoil due to individual failures. When loading - do not forget to delete the checkbox "Reduce" with each picture and in the general settings. T_Moor , ##
vfl.ru 1 4 5 preview 1 4 5 page 1 4 5	Changes the weight of the full PNG file (1, 4, 5) by + 10%, without changing the size ("optimizes"). The rest is high quality. Preview 200px, 24KB, PNG. tsm1 , ##
jpegshare.net 1 3 4 6 preview 1 4 6 page 1 6 page with texts 3 4 6	(It is jpeg.im. ) No settings, deletion, registration. There are only 3 kinds 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 the note: "*) may be further modified." Which, by the way, does not cause trust to other rules.) akrus , ##
picsafe.ru preview 1 view 1	The quality of the preview is bad. Just the case when PNG24 squeezes with a bang (4K), but quality is worse than ever. Reduces the size if it does not fit in the window, and you have to guess click on the picture to view the full (small note, but the viewer can easily think what it is in this quality, as he sees, you need to look. No label: click to view in full size Only a “hand" for a click, it’s not known where to lead. Other hosting providers sometimes lead to their site on such a click, so the viewer will not try to click once again.) mihass , ##
imagehost.spark-media.ru 1 4 preview 1 4 page - no	Some “puncture” they have with usability. Looking at the colored texts, you need to guess first click on the "150" in the purple row to be able to get a preview, and then only "Select and load" ( screenshot ), the download goes immediately after selecting the file. If without a choice of preview, we will see after sending ( screenshot ) compression in HTML. But even with the preview, we see the same bit of HTML, not the preview. The design of questionable taste is very much to the amateur. The plus is that everything is in 2-3 clicks. The inscription. Decrease. 7 gradations of a preview. 6 texts. Link removal. Date added Successful compression and quality of PNG in preview (150px, 15K). There is no browsing page - how will hosting costs pay off? (Probably, HTML will be introduced under the PNG extension.)
picsa.ru 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 on the preview. 4 text to insert. 4 gradations of size reduction or without it - is displayed when viewing. To manage photos are collected in one internal gallery. Rules not published. Flash is used in places, but everything can be done without it - there is an HTML duplicate of downloading files. Some usability flaws (rules, notification of restrictions). Rating 20%. snarker , # description , review on Habré
pixshock.net 1 2 5- tripled weight preview 1 2 page 1 3	The size limits are at least 100px, not 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 the cookie). There are many drawbacks, even very much - at every turn. Full , ##
img.flashtux.org 1 3 4 no preview page 1 , 3 , 4	Simple service with the publication of 3 clicks. Lists only the link to the viewing page. No preview. Replaces .html with .png. Softovick , ##
habreffect.ru 1 4 no preview page 1 4	HTML - with the extension of the image file. 3 texts. No preview. huze (author), # copyright description
Various kind of unsuccessful hosting in terms of selection conditions.
rghost.ru one preview 1 page 1	It saves any files, but for images there are the usual photo hosting capabilities, for other files - their own viewing or playing. Change type to JPG with all the consequences. If you do not set the password (after the download), apparently, it falls into the open instant view. Storage up to 30 days (default 5). Description, comment, tags. 7 texts to copy. (It is clear that the following is not interesting, but is shown as hosting all files for a short storage time.) DeNnEr , ##
adslclub.ru one no preview page - no	Bad name, because At the beginning of the word ad ... all banner cutters work. In terms of properties and functionality, it can be figuratively described as “extremely lazy,” that is, it leaves the work to the user. It gives 2 text to copy: direct BB code and a direct link. There is no talk of any comforts, even the “Download more” links are not (instead, you have to guess that the “OK” button is working). In addition, it can store arbitrary files up to 100 MB for up to 30 days; about the timing for the pictures did not say anything. Size up to 1 MB. (This is probably a simple technical service for a narrow group of people that has fallen on public display.) 404666 , ##
pict.com ( article on Habré )	The functionality is good, similar and somewhat better than that of the Picamatic, but without authorization (with hidden authorization by cookies) allow you to upload up to 10 image files, with authorization - up to 60, then for a fee.

If both tables are joined together, then all hosting by rating would be lined up this way (sites from the second table are indented to the right):

host.fotki.com
imageshack.us
pikucha.ru
radikal.ru
funkyimg.com
imageshost.ru
picamatic.com
uploadingit.com/public
imgur.com
savepic.ru

omploader.org
theimghost.com
ephotobay.com
picbite.com
tinypic.com
fastpic.ru
itrash.ru
ii4.ru
itmages.ru
turboimagehost.com
photoload.ru
fotometka.ru
ixdrive.co.uk
uaimage.com
vfl.ru
thumbsnap.com
jpegshare.net

simplest-image-hosting.net
picsafe.ru
imagehost.spark-media.ru
10pix.ru
picsa.ru
sharepix.ru
imagepros.us
fanstudio.ru/index.php
freeimagehosting.net
Keep4u.Ru
save-img.com
piccy.info
mirfoto.ru
imagebar.net (banner)
pixshock.net (not advertise)
saveimg.ru
img.flashtux.org (no preview)
habreffect.ru (without preview)

The next step in the orientation among the hosting sites could be the construction of a table of properties where all attributes will be formalized and classified. To make it easy to find out and select those hosts 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 manual matter. Let the remaining hosts be better published faster and present a relatively comprehensive comparison of opportunities.

Hostings that were suggested by readers in the previous article and did not make the list were checked by me, and the reasons for missing were indicated in my comments there. Basically, it is a registration, advertisement or conversion of source files (from PNG to JPG).

Of the most frequent problems with the quality of hosting, we see the inability to make a PNG preview of an effective size. Probably, this has its own technical reasons, especially with the creation of a preview in PNG-8. Some services bypass this problem by compressing the preview in JPG. In second place is the problem with animated GIF, in the third - the limited size of images for processing. There are also those services (not in the series considered) that decide that squeezing pictures will be a blessing for the user. In the case of photos - maybe, but not in the case of screenshots, maps and schemes.

I hope that the comparison made will be useful both to consumers of the products of the services - the users, and its producers - to the developers of the services. Test examples clearly show what problems (part of the problems) may occur when trying to save them.

UPD 31.03: as a result of feedback in the comments, the following hosting has been added to the article table:

photoload.ru, picsafe.ru, pixshock.net, vfl.ru; rating levels of about 60-30%, i.e. not the worst of them all; imm.io failed in quality.