How you design your database storage scheme is subjective, but there are objective things to consider in your scenario. I'll address those, and leave the "which should I choose" to you...
Azure Storage blobs are designed for bulk "block" data (such as documents, images, etc). Something like SQL Database is designed for metadata (stuff you search/index/query).
Everything can be done via SQL Database, and you would only need to worry about SQL queries (and it sounds like that's something you're already familiar with). SQL Server (and SQL Database) have always had the ability to store binary content via its BLOB type.
While you can store your images in SQL Database, you will find that your database size increases considerably, vs just storing queryable metadata. And while SQL Database service allows you to scale your storage, you'll find larger scale in blob storage (up to 500TB) at a lower cost than SQL Database service. If you run SQL Server in a VM, then you'll still have storage cost (attached disks) equivalent to blobs, along with VM costs.
Storage blobs, by themselves, don't provide a query language - you will need to know the container and/or blob name. So, for optimum searching, you'll want a queryable database with your metadata (e.g. SQL Database).
If you store your images in blobs, and reference them via URI in your database, you will be able to query against your database, find the image's URI, and then read from blob storage appropriately.
Also note: With blobs, you'll be able to provide direct image URI access to, say, a browser or an app (even if the blob is marked as private), which allows you to then bypass your app tier when delivering binary (image) content to the end-user. Blobs may also be cached in the CDN, which you cannot do with SQL Database.
Which you choose is ultimately up to you; I simply provided the objective reasons to use each.
