Well I wouldn't pay for a Zenfolio account if I shoot with p&s. However, I didn't compare the Flickr and Zen side by side. There probably is a slight difference. The people that visit my gallery do not examine my pictures under a loupe. I think the larger picture delivers a bigger impact than a smaller picture that is a little sharper.

Okay I just compared Flickr's slide show image quality to Zen's, and yeah I can definitely see the difference. Kudos to Zen for image quality. I think it would be the best if Zen allowed the viewer an option to choose between going true fullscreen or to keep it the way it is currently.

Sounds reasonable but perhaps not to Zen at this time. Requests are mounting, and I'm not sure Zen can keep up with all our "demands" :o).

To the credit of Zen folks, I have to say they've done pretty good by us since Zen's inception.

skysi:

To the credit of Zen folks, I have to say they've done pretty good by us since Zen's inception.

We really try, thank you for the love.

I love Zen. I argue with people that Zen is better than Smugmug or anything else out there. I initially did the Smugmug 2 week preview and didn't like their design or themes. I chose Zen for a reason, but wanting the larger images I feel is a basic and reasonable request. If Zen had larger images, no else could compete with them! Let's just do that and get it done with. You won't hear another complaint from me.

 Considering higher resolution images being uploaded with 10meg pixels 1068 width is less than 33% of the original size

Please clarify the point above. The size of the uploaded original is not related with the visitor's monitor resolution and browser window size. I posted before the results of our research, which shows that the majority of viewers have the resolution of at most 1280 pixels horizontally.

In any case, this thread highlights that there are some customers who are willing to sacrifice some quality for achieving the true full-screen viewing experience. We are working on a solution that will accommodate that, as well as introduce a larger image size. 

Sounds great, Vitas. That's one thing I love Zenfolio for: quick response to customers' needs. Kudos!

Awesome Vitas! Great to hear the good news. I am a happy camper.

This is great news.  Zen is the top choice. Thank you Vitas.  Now I am very happy.  No more complaints.

Has there been any updates on this front in the 3+ months since this thread was last posted too?

I have been searching for a suitable host that can provide an ecommerce solution for a while. ZF fits the bill for me not least of all because it supports businesses and customers outside the US. So I set up a free trial account.

I accept the trade-off between the currently fairly limited themes/site layout options and the excellant ease of use/maintence. However I was very supprised when I created a gallery and uploaded a few images and went to "so called" full screen.

I get ZF' need to ensure they meet their own quality standards and I also get some customers being satisfied with slight image degradation. I would fall down on ZF side on this one. As a Fine Art Photographer it is critical that my images are displayed at the highest quality possible. However on the flip side it is unacceptable that the largest image available is 1100px. While ZF have completed analysis from visitors to the site and established just 5% would benefit from larger sizes my own research from visitors to my sites indicate 37% would benefit. And TBH even if it were just 5% of my visitors that would benefit I'd still want it!

At this point this is a deal-breaker for me and I may decide to continue running my own site for now and continue the search.

I do hope the upcoming Zenfolio upgrade includes a considerably larger image size. This is a deal-breaker for me also. I won't be renewing my subscription (and I know I'm not the only one) if we don't get a bigger image size (or two) very soon. And I'm talking about a larger, high-quality conversion from the uploaded original file, not a stretched full-screen image made from a current 1100-pixel file.

Keeping my fingers crossed...

I'm also standing in the deal-breaker queue when it's time to renew my subscription.

Sure, I may not find as stylished looks and easy site building tools elsewhere, but 1100px with current big monitors?! Even low-end consumer computers now come with 1920x1080/1200px resolutions so it's hard to believe that 5 % study…

I'm not gonna threaten to leave over this, but it IS really frustrating.  I do big prints (usually 24" or more).  I don't really do small prints.  But the presentation here would mislead someone to believe the opposite.  

On any screen I use for viewing (including my merely 15" HP laptop, let alone my cinema-ratio Macs), there is lots of wasted screen real estate that could be dedicated to my image.  Strangely, the slideshow sometimes seems to take less advantage of available space than the Dim the Lights mode? Besides the need for larger sizes, it seems the current sizes aren't very optimum.  

I appreciate that adding new sizes isn't trivial, but when numerous other services offer larger and more effective presentation of images, zF seems increasingly dated by comparison.  Let's catch up!  

Also, I appreciate that the portrait-oriented images are scaled to fit within the browser window, and I want it to stay that way by default.  But a 2x zoom feature (that added a scrollbar for the viewer) would be nice.  

More picture, less wasted space.  Please.  

Thorne:

Also, I appreciate that the portrait-oriented images are scaled to fit within the browser window, and I want it to stay that way by default.  But a 2x zoom feature (that added a scrollbar for the viewer) would be nice. 

Only comment I would have on that is rather than '2x', maybe a 'fit to width' with a vertical scrollbar would be nice.  :)

Ok now I'm already rethinking that.. I guess depending on the width of the original, and your monitor resolution, you 'could' get a really crappy 'fit to width' if you had to enlarge it past it's original width.  Maybe either option, '2x' or 'fit to width' should constrain to max width of the original.