Is it better to create another table to possible null values in relational databases?
You are touching on an almost philosophical argument here: should NULLable values be allowed at all given they violate the "closed world" assumption of the model relational databases are derived from (see relevant sections of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_(SQL) and a number of other questions here such as Why shouldn&#39;t we allow NULLs? for more notes on that). To avoid unknown values splitting properties that might be unknown (or simply not applicable in all circumstances) into their own relation (table) so that you don't have values that are unknown but instead if a value is unknown it simply doesn't exist. While this satisfies the theory, there are practical implications that make it less desirable:


A JOIN operation is not free in most RDBMSs, searching for the properties in the extra table(s) increases the work the engine needs to do to satisfy your queries.
If the existence of properties is not codependent (i.e. each proerty can be unknown irrespective of the others) then to carry this implementation to its conclusion you sometimes end up needing a table for each property.
The extra joins add to the complexity of your queries and can reduce maintainability.
Updates also become less intuitive in places: blanking a property now becomes a DELETE operation and updating one may be either an INSERT or an UPDATE.


Of course there are circumstances where that first point is reversed and breaking properties off improves efficiency:


Most RBDMSs use page based storage and breaking optional information off from core data means you can fit more core data rows in a given page. Depending on your data size, RAM, and storage infrastructure this could be significant in reducing the amount of IO required for some large queries (but often isn't: try not to "over optimise" around this point, at least without running good benchmarks to make sure things are improving not worsening).
This is of course assuming that your queries are designed so they pick up only what they need so the engine won't need to care about the drawing in the extra information anyway.
Similarly there is less writing to do if you are only updating core information in an INSERT or UPDATE, and if you have constraints or triggers around those extra properties this processing is potentially avoided on each row change.


Your example looks like it is storing images (or at least large bits of data in blob type columns. There are two extra considerations here:


Most database engines store large data "off page" anyway, so if you avoid SELECT * you get the rows-per-page bonuses "for free" anyway.
Does moving them elsewhere allow you to share the large data between multiple entities rather than storing the same blob more than once, or is the information (if present) unique to a given row?


tl;dr: So no hard and fast answer I'm afraid. My advice would be to do whatever best fits your conceptual model of your data and therefore requires less thought on your part to maintain. This usually, but not always, means using NULLable columns rather than separate tables. Unless your data is truly massive the performance differences are going to be negligible.