<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>idea Improve graphic capabilities for final cartographic map production in ArcGIS Pro Ideas</title>
    <link>https://community.esri.com/t5/arcgis-pro-ideas/improve-graphic-capabilities-for-final/idi-p/955469</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;More often than not, if you want a really good looking map (complete with images, fading of elements, image shadowing/blurring, font enhancements, etc.), users&amp;nbsp;are relegated to&amp;nbsp;export the map document into&amp;nbsp;Photoshop or Illustrator&amp;nbsp;for post editing and final production.&amp;nbsp; Wouldn't it be nice to include some of these processes in ArcGIS?&amp;nbsp; I've seen some great maps created using ArcGIS, but it is just one cog in the wheel of map production.&amp;nbsp; I know it won't be as robust as what Adobe products allow, but there would be time saved if &lt;EM&gt;some &lt;/EM&gt;of these elements could be incorporated into&amp;nbsp;ArcGIS&amp;nbsp;Desktop.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;!--  content transformation source ID: 0873000000086wu  --&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Tue, 30 Apr 2024 22:57:22 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>EricHorowitz</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2024-04-30T22:57:22Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Improve graphic capabilities for final cartographic map production</title>
      <link>https://community.esri.com/t5/arcgis-pro-ideas/improve-graphic-capabilities-for-final/idi-p/955469</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;More often than not, if you want a really good looking map (complete with images, fading of elements, image shadowing/blurring, font enhancements, etc.), users&amp;nbsp;are relegated to&amp;nbsp;export the map document into&amp;nbsp;Photoshop or Illustrator&amp;nbsp;for post editing and final production.&amp;nbsp; Wouldn't it be nice to include some of these processes in ArcGIS?&amp;nbsp; I've seen some great maps created using ArcGIS, but it is just one cog in the wheel of map production.&amp;nbsp; I know it won't be as robust as what Adobe products allow, but there would be time saved if &lt;EM&gt;some &lt;/EM&gt;of these elements could be incorporated into&amp;nbsp;ArcGIS&amp;nbsp;Desktop.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;!--  content transformation source ID: 0873000000086wu  --&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 30 Apr 2024 22:57:22 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.esri.com/t5/arcgis-pro-ideas/improve-graphic-capabilities-for-final/idi-p/955469</guid>
      <dc:creator>EricHorowitz</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2024-04-30T22:57:22Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Improve graphic capabilities for final cartographic map production</title>
      <link>https://community.esri.com/t5/arcgis-pro-ideas/improve-graphic-capabilities-for-final/idc-p/955470#M7965</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;I would prefer that the existing function in ArcMap just worked well.&amp;nbsp; Increasing ArcMap's speed and &lt;U&gt;reliability&lt;/U&gt; would save me more time than trying to add even more functions.&amp;nbsp; In my workshop I have a table saw, bandsaw, jig saw and various hand saws.&amp;nbsp; Each does what it does very well, reliably and predictably. &amp;nbsp; I don't want a Swiss Army saw.

&lt;!-- content transformation source ID: 00a30000006xL17 --&gt;

&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 15 Apr 2010 16:29:44 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.esri.com/t5/arcgis-pro-ideas/improve-graphic-capabilities-for-final/idc-p/955470#M7965</guid>
      <dc:creator>AndyMurray1</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2010-04-15T16:29:44Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

