OK - I've decided to go with Imageshack for storing my images, as it I allows me to keep the full size of the images.
There is however the issue of how I display those images. Here are two examples. I could really use feedback as to which I should use ^_^;
The first method is relatively painless. A code is provided with a thumbnail and a link - and it seamlessly integrates with the blogger editor. The downside, of course, is there would be a change to the size of the initial thumbnail appearing on my blog. This concerns me, because it makes casual viewing of the site more difficult.
This image of Miu is easy to make out; but that becomes less true with more complex images (like this other example below.) Does the size of the thumbnail matter to you?
This magazine thumbail is also an example of larger size images requiring you to right-click on the enlarged size, and choosing to view the image in a new window or tab. (Here, and here are examples of the difference.)
This second example pretty much replicates what I have with blogger. Its harder to do, though - as I need to upload the large size image, and then upload it again with Imageshack scaling it to an acceptable size. I then have to manually enter the address for both image sizes. I prefer the look of this method - but it's much harder to do. It might even result in less frequent updates on my part, if it gets too hard for me.
I wish Imageshack would allow me to determine my own choice of thumbnail size. There are different sizes of thumbnail - but the difference between "small" and "medium" is too large; the default "medium" size is too large for the width of this blog. There doesn't seem to be a middle-ground between 640x360, versus 100x56, unless I create a separate thumbnail of 360x180 (the same blogger has been providing all along)
Feedback would be greatly appreciated.
I'll ultimately make my own decision, but I would like to know what other people think.