About us

Always the same list, and all of it is settled by reading what the operator publishes before it asks anyone for an account:

• The price of the smallest package and how many units it delivers, so the figure quoted is the price per image rather than the headline on the banner.
• Which payment methods it accepts. A card leaves a chargeback open, an e-wallet leaves a complaint with a provider that answers to a Philippine regulator, and a transfer in cryptocurrency leaves nothing at all.
• Whether there is a written refund procedure with deadlines, or whether sales are declared final.
• What it says about the file it receives: a retention window with a number in it, or a promise with no date attached.
• Who operates it — company name, declared country, competent court. The absence of all three goes into the card.
• What it hands over before payment, and how many images those welcome credits actually are.

The warning signs that come out of that reading — payment pages with no merchant name, charges that renew by themselves, documents that contradict each other inside the same site — are set out separately, in where the money disappears.

No accounts are opened on these services, no plans are bought, and no text on this site describes a result produced here. Producing one would take a photograph of a real person, and nobody consents to becoming test material. That puts output quality, real resolution and delivery time outside the scope — none of which the services publish either.

That gap is the better option. Every figure here has to be traceable to a document a reader can open too.

The cards on the front page carry a number out of ten, running from 9.4 down to 8.2. It is worth saying precisely what it is and what it is not, because a badly read score decides a purchase. It is an editorial rating built from open information: a summary of what could be read in each service's own published documents — the price and the unit it is charged in, what is visible before sign-up, and what the service writes about storage and deletion.

None of those three rows measures the quality of the output, and none of them can: no paid account was opened, nobody's photograph was sent, and no result was assessed. Where a service publishes nothing on one of the rows, the card leaves a gap instead of filling it with an estimate. Who operates the service is checked too, but it sits in the card as plain text rather than inside the number.

The date beside each card is the date of a document review. It does not say "we tested this on that day", it says "we read its documents on that day", which is a far smaller claim and the only one that can be defended.

Commissions. If you sign up on the far side of a button, the operator pays a percentage and you pay its usual price, with no surcharge for having arrived from here. Every service in the catalogue runs an affiliate programme and every button goes through it: claiming that one of them is an exception would be false.

What that commission does not buy: an entry, a higher position, the removal of a warning, or a gap in the information turned into a figure. The order is written against the criteria above before anyone looks at which programme pays better, which is why the first name on the list and the most heavily flagged one are linked in exactly the same way. How those links are marked in the code, and what the person signing this actually undertakes, is in the limits of liability.

This domain generates no images, receives no files from readers, hosts no installers and links to no downloads, and stands between nobody and any operator. There is no form, no cart and no account to open. There is no measurement either: what this site receives is set out separately, and the short answer is that no analytics or advertising cookies are used.

From that comes a limit worth stating in advance rather than afterwards: nobody here can pull down an image sitting on someone else's server, cancel a subscription, or claw back a charge. What can be done is explain which body handles which step and in what order, and that is how to get an image taken down.

Prices in this category move without notice and no page tracks them in real time, so an error is not a hypothesis, it is a matter of months. Point it out with the page, the sentence, and where the correct figure sits. It is checked against the original document and fixed.

There are two clocks. When the wrong figure can cost a reader money — an amount, a payment method, a refund rule — the card is corrected or pulled on the day the error is confirmed; everything else goes into the ordinary review, on business days. If the check leads nowhere, the claim is replaced by the gap. Where to write and what to bring in the message is in where to write.