nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Exporting to PDF from ArcGIS Pro is producing large file sizes

SarahAcMoody

Hi all,

I've reproduced some of my old map documents in ArcGIS Pro, believing there would be some efficiencies in this. When I export these layouts to PDF, the resulting files are about 5x larger than the same maps exported out of ArcMap (~5MB vs < 1MB). The export options are set-up the same in both Pro and ArcMap and I've also experimented with Resolution (dpi) & Image Quality, to no avail. Even at a 96 dpi and "Fastest" imagey quality, I'm getting 5MB PDF's.

Any thoughts? I've looked all around and cannot find any articles addresses this issue.

Thanks!

Find more posts tagged with

Accepted answers

All comments

Anonymous User

For anyone following this page: we figured out that "Output as image" rasterizes labels. So the labels look blurry when you print the pdf. So we can't use that.

But I am using ArcGIS Pro 2.8.3 now and our settings are working well:

No output as image

image compression: Adaptive

Quality: 85

Compress Vector graphics

Vector Resolution: 300 dpi

Raster resample: Best

Embed Fonts

Very helpful hint that our GIS Specialist found: And add basemaps to a group and apply transparency to group or the pdf will have grid lines - https://geodesign.studio/export-arcgis-pro-adobe-illustrator/

Anonymous User

I did not find any Ideas on the Ideas site related to this. So I just created one: https://community.esri.com/t5/arcgis-pro-ideas/make-pdf-exported-from-arcgis-pro-smaller-file-size-like-arcmap/idi-p/1052830

I also have a call in to Esri Tech support to see what the latest Esri word is on this. I'm using 2.7.0 and still no improvement on PDF file size.

Jeremy Wright

Does the pdf look ok in reader, just not in browsers?

kmsmikrud

Hi Jeremy,

Yes on the embedded subset and I had checked to 'Embed Fonts' on the layout export. Thank-you!

Jeremy Wright

Kathy,

Open the pdf in adobe reader then hit ctrl-d to open up document properties. Go to the fonts tab. Does the listing say "embedded subset"?

Regards,

Jeremy W.

kmsmikrud

Hello,

I am using Pro 2.3.2 and also noticed larger file sizes or needed to reduce the .pdf maps for use on our website.

The maps consist of vector data and the exports look great. To reduce the .pdf I did the save as reduced file size in Adobe Acrobat and then passed them to our webmaster to post online. I think the webmaster also saved the .pdfs again to reduce file size. I think in the save as reduced file size option it had make compatible with Adobe Acrobat 8.0 and later.

Anyway when the .pdfs were posted on our website and I was completely surprised on what the .pdfs looked like. In Google Chrome the .pdf mostly looked good except the Arial bold font was distorted and not right. In Microsoft Edge the map looked really awful with it being stretched and not displaying right at all. I've attached two screenshots showing the website maps.

Microsoft Edge is the 1st screenshot and then Google Chrome second. Has anybody experienced this? Kory Kramer? Jeff Barrette? Jeremy Wright? I've now exported the .pdfs with the save to image file and that seems to resolve the issue although there a few text items that look better in the original than as an image file. What I don't understand is why this would happen in the first place because sometimes I may not want to export as an image file. Thanks in advance!, Kathy

Microsoft Edge View of .pdf

Google Chrome view of .pdf with Bold titles not correct

jbarrette

Hi Emmor, I never got these files. Did you try sending them?

Jeff

emmornile1

Thanks Jeff,

I had not used that option, and re-exported and the PDF file is now 158 MB, however, the white lines went away, so that is an improvement.

jbarrette

Hi Emmor,

Just to confirm, when you export via the Share-->Export dialog, are you checking the new option called "Ouput as Image"? If your map contains few and relatively non-dense vector layers, it is actually possible this option could produce a larger output. I will ask other team members about the possible source of the white lines.

Jeff

emmornile1

I am still seeing this issue. I have a layout in 10.6 that produces a 52MB file in the PDF version 1.6, from PRO 2.3 the same settings produce a 108MB file which is PDF version 1.7. The more critical concern is that the PRO PDF has some artifacts that make it unacceptable, the higher the DPI the more white lines show up.

PRO 2.3 version:

10.6 version

Any ideas Kory?

Jeremy Wright

Hello everyone on this thread. I thought I'd jump in to provide some clarity on this topic.

Bottom line: we definitely want an option to reduce file size while still maintaining the vector data as vector with native transparency.

We weren't able to achieve this goal in time for 2.3, so what will be available at the 2.3 release is a rasterization option "Output as Image" - which provides some relief for file sizes in the case where vector data volume (e.g. number of vertices/segments) is very high and therefore creates very large PDFs.

To clarify some of the myriad concerns brought up on this thread since Jeff's post:

1. There should be no degradation (other than of course any aliasing encountered due to the resolution of rasterization vs pure vector features) with the "output as image" option. Not sure why this is being mentally conflated with Sharing to a Web Map, but that's probably where this misconception comes from.

2. EAP = early adopter program, akin to Beta. If you're in the Beta program you're already aware, if not, ask your Esri rep if you want to participate. We highly value Beta program participation as it provides great feedback for all areas of the software, especially for users with unique workflows or data not easily emulated in test environments.

3. Yes of course we want to do more than the stair-stepped downsampling that was "built in" in ArcMap, as that was the bug we strove to fix in Pro exports in addition to native support for transparency. The "stair-stepping" in ArcMap came "for free" as a result of Microsoft GDI's architecture. Many people reported this "stair-stepping" aliasing as a BUG in ArcMap.

4. Output As Image is of course not the only solution - but we wanted to give our users some option to use to reduce filesize in the interim before the vector option was completed. As Vincent so astutely pointed out, it's not a panacea, it's merely another option to try which will help in cases of extreme volumes of vector data. As an aside: Many users are already creating "raster" PDFs by using Adobe Acrobat's "optimize PDF" feature, which has myriad options beyond a simple rasterization.

I hope this clears up some of the confusion on this thread. Rest assured we are working on improvements to the ArcGIS Pro Graphics Engine and Output Engines at each release, and we appreciate your feedback.

Lastly, keep in mind that the forums here are meant to be a peer-to-peer resource. As such you may not get an immediate response from Esri employees. We take all of your feedback, ideas site upvotes, support incidents and many other factors into account when prioritizing work for each release for our teams of developers, so I always like to say "if you see something say something".

HOW CAN YOU BE SURE YOUR FEEDBACK IS HEARD IN A TIMELY MANNER BY THE APPROPRIATE PARTIES?

If you want to report behavior that seems to be a bug, contact Esri support.
1. you will actually get a "paper trail" or a BUG number that can be referenced in future correspondence
2. if your bug has already been reported, your repro cases/information can be added to the information already available, which may help us resolve the issue sooner.
3. Your BUG number will show up in the "issues resolved" report in each release's release notes, confirming a resolution.
If you want to request a new feature, please use ArcGIS Ideas
1. This allows community users to support/upvote your idea if they too have the same requirement
2. This gives our teams direct feedback on demand for a given enhancement
3. This allows you a forum with which to give use cases/reasons for the additional requirement beyond a simple incident report.
4. You'll see your "idea" in the "Ideas on the Move" post that Kory Kramer does at each release. For reference, you can take a look at the "ideas" that are implemented, or even those that are moved to "in product plan" for the 2.2 release: https://community.esri.com/community/arcgis-ideas/blog/2018/07/03/arcgis-desktop-ideas-on-the-move-july-2018 and a similar post will be created when ArcGIS Pro 2.3 is released.

Thanks again!

Regards,

Jeremy W.

Esri

jbarrette

A user interface (UI) export option called "Output as image" was added to the Pro 2.3 export dialog. It rasterizes all vector layers. The file size difference is most evident when the vector layers are large with a high number of vertices.

Arcpy.mp won't have this option until the next release (hopefully 2.4) due to the option in the UI being a late addition to Pro 2.3.

Jeff

KoryKramer

Don't worry about hurting anyone's feelings. The ArcGIS Pro development team has big ears, big hearts, and most importantly, THICK SKIN Keep the feedback coming. We can't guarantee that it will all get done, or that it will get done as soon as you want, but you are being heard.

Cheers

PhilLarkin1

Thanks Kory Kramer‌

Do you have any idea if this will integrated into arcpy? Specifically the method exportToPDF in the Map Series Class?

MapSeries—ArcPy | ArcGIS Desktop

JoshCox

Thanks for the info, that will be very helpful. I also voted for the generalization at export. I didn't mean to come down so harsh and call out the DEV team like that. PRO is a complete redesign, so there will be growing pains. Just a little frustration on my end. I am probably the biggest champion for PRO at my company, so when we hit walls in functionality like this people lose confidence.

KoryKramer

Rasterizing the vector data absolutely should be an option for exporting PDFs.

ArcGIS Pro 2.3 coming in early 2019:

Just rasterizing for now. If you need smaller exports while maintaining the vector layers, please go to https://community.esri.com/ideas/14201 to vote and add your use case in the comments.

Thank you.

PhilLarkin1

This is still a problem at Pro 2.2.4

JoshCox

This is another example of the DEV team leaving out vital functionality from ArcMap in PRO, that they envision the users not needing, and it's really 'hamstringing' a very great product. I would be in PRO 100% of the time if it wasn't for things like this. Not every map needs to include all the "rich info" that ArcPro can provide in a PDF. In the real working world, some of us just need to kick out maps that we share with others and they can actually print without having it hangup during flattening during the printing process. And not all of us have the ability to run it through an Adobe product to do a process that ArcMap had the functionality to do. Rasterizing the vector data absolutely should be an option for exporting PDFs.

ChrisBruce

I just came across this thread after encountering this problem and this sounded like a good solution. So I tried using Microsoft Print to PDF and that did the trick for me. An export to PDF from Pro that was around 26 MB was 2 MB using Print to PDF. Another workaround I've used when having a buggy issue happen with exporting to PDF from ArcMap is to export to TIFF then convert to PDF using a free on-line tool (like tiff2pdf.com). This may require an intermediate step of first reducing the TIFF file size by saving with LZW compression from an image editor.

JasonMcKeefry

I could not print any pdf files generated from ArcGIS Pro because our printer didn't have enough memory. My workaround is to print from ArcGIS Pro to the CutePDF Writer (free). The pdf generated from that could be printed. Hope this helps others.

JasonVan_Warmerdam1

At this point the only way to produce something similar to what was in ArcMap is the exportToPNG function in python. Thank you for mentioning that, I would have never thought of that. I hope they come up with a better alternative soon.

ChrisMathers1

I am in the same boat with three county atlases I converted to a Pro project. at 300 dpi each exported from ArcMap to about a 75 mb PDF. The same PDF from Pro at 300 dpi is 1.25 gb. This is a 151 page document that only has two feature classes in the map frame, street centerlines and water bodies. If you export the map series to PNG, which isnt an option in the GUI you have to do it from python, you can merge those into a single PDF using any number of free or paid PDF tools. Its not a great solution but it works.

edit: a bit of script for the export to PNG is available already written at the bottom of the map series class documentation.

RachaelChasse

I posted an idea for generalizing vector data on export, if anyone wants to vote for it.

https://community.esri.com/ideas/14201

VincentLaunstorfer

Thanks Robert for the File --> Save Other As -- > Reduce File Size...

I just tried it on an A1+ poster which was 37,965 KB and is now 10,097 KB. A good improvement! But if I try "Save as PDF, optimized", it produces the exact same size 10,097 KB. However, the PDF Optimizer dialog box gives much more control on how to optimize.

Also, as mentioned previously, in Acrobat Pro, resterizing the .pdf with Tools pan -> Print Production tab -> Flattener Preview gives a 3,368 KB file size for the same poster. But it is now rasterized like a .png and just "encapsulated" in .pdf to be convenient to use...

emmornile1

I don't understand why the functionality of Pro is so different from 10.5

I am doing a simple vector map that is 5 MB in 10.5 and 37 MB in Pro 2.0, the Image Quality setting changes nothing and the DPI is 96

It is absurd that the "solution" is to buy Acrobat

Pro is still quite young in the lifecycle

RachaelChasse

Hi Robert,

I was having the same file size issues as the poster and tried so many different export options out of ArcGIS Pro to reduce the file size. We create 11x17 documents using aerial imagery and many detailed vector layers. The files were exporting to PDF at around 20 MB (150 dpi).

I tried using the Acrobat DC option "Save as PDF, optimized", which brought it down by a few MB. This still wasn't a realistic file size, and I was getting ready to resort to PNG files--until I saw your suggestion.

This worked perfectly! The file is now 1.6MB and all vector data and the original image resolution has been retained. I'm not sure what this option does differently, or what kind of info it is removing, but it does the trick. You made my day--thanks!

progis99

If you have Adobe Acrobat Pro DC, you can reduce the file size by going to File --> Save Other As -- > Reduce File Size .

evtguy

Do you have access to Adobe Acrobat Pro? I'd suggest creating a PDF using Adobe's Distiller option as a test. I'm not currently using Pro but, my experience within Arcmap tells me that using ESRI's export to PDF option typically produces larger PDF files than printing to Adobe's PDF Distiller virtual printer. This is my preferred method of producing PDFs within Arcmap.

I will say that Pro is built from the ground up with an entirely new graphics pipeline so it is possible that comparing previous experiences with Arcmap are no longer applicable. Anyways, worth a try if you have that ability.

deleted-user-AAb7-r4fhb6g

Hi Jeremy,

I've just exported a map from ArcGIS Pro v 2.0 and the size of my pdf is 33x (!!!!!) bigger than the size of the same map exported from ArcMap.

As a part of our GIS project I have to create 76 of these PDF maps every month and the size is going to be a big issue.

You mentioned in your post above that your team has considered allowing rasterization. Any update?

Regards,

Monika

Jeremy Wright

Sarah,

If you have a map which has this problem (e.g. exports at same dpi to PDF in ArcMap are significantly smaller than exports to PDF from Pro 1.3) please package it up (File->Share As-> Map Package) and send it in to technical support so we can get a developer's eyes on the issue.

As to your question - it is something we have considered and discussed at length on the dev team for a future release.

Pro (and ArcMap actually) attempt to create "rich" PDFs - they have layers, geospatial info, etc. If you want a really small PDF, one workaround is to use Adobe Acrobat's "optimize pdf" option - which strips out all the rich info and creates a small, "just for viewing/printing" PDF.

Regards,

Jeremy W.

DanPatterson_Retired

here is the new pro 1.3 what's new What's new in ArcGIS Pro 1.3—ArcGIS Pro | ArcGIS for Desktop

and the release notes .. aka... bugs fixed Release Notes for ArcGIS Pro 1.3—ArcGIS Pro | ArcGIS for Desktop

SarahAcMoody

Thanks Jeremy,

Are there any future plans to allow users the option to rasterize exports to a PDF? The majority of my maps are vector based and most of my maps need to be in PDF format. If Pro continues to export vector based maps resulting in large file sizes, utilizing Pro for cartographic based outputs won't be a practical option for me.

Again, thank you for your quick response.

Sarah

Jeremy Wright

ArcGIS PRo maintains the vector content in your maps, whereas ARcMap rasterized things that were below transparent or rasterizing features. This means if you've got a lot of vector content, you may see a size increase versus an ArcMap export.

Join the Conversation

Signed in members can post, follow updates, and more. New here? Register a free account.

Quick Links

Community Help
Find useful guides, FAQs, and documents to help you navigate and make the most of Esri Community.