I think for smaller projects just storing images as BLOBs in e.g. PostgreSQL works quite well.
I know this is controversial. People will claim it's bad for performance.
But that's only bad if performance is something you're having problems with, or going to have problems with. If the system you're working on is small, and going to stay small, then that doesn't matter. Not all systems are like this, but some are.
Storing the images directly in the database has a lot of advantages. They share a transactional context with the other updates you're doing. They get backed up at the same time, and if you do a "point in time" restore they're consistent with the rest of your data. No additional infrastructure to manage to store the files.
I know this is controversial. People will claim it's bad for performance.
But that's only bad if performance is something you're having problems with, or going to have problems with. If the system you're working on is small, and going to stay small, then that doesn't matter. Not all systems are like this, but some are.
Storing the images directly in the database has a lot of advantages. They share a transactional context with the other updates you're doing. They get backed up at the same time, and if you do a "point in time" restore they're consistent with the rest of your data. No additional infrastructure to manage to store the files.