Client approvals still end up in PDF more often than design teams want to admit.
The client may not have Figma access. Procurement may need a file attached to an email chain. A legal reviewer may want one static document they can annotate offline. A stakeholder may simply be more comfortable reading a PDF than clicking through frames in a browser.
That is why “just send the Figma link” is not a complete workflow. If the approval package is hard to open, too large to email, or full of pages the reviewer does not need, the review gets slower and the feedback gets worse.
TinyImage helps because it keeps PDF export and compression inside the same Figma workflow the team is already using. The real value is not only smaller files. It is being able to create a PDF that is easy for clients to open, easy for teams to version, and specific enough that the reviewer can focus on the actual decision.
A client approval PDF has a different job from a source design file
The Figma file is the working environment.
The approval PDF is a communication artifact.
That difference matters because the client usually does not need:
- every exploration frame
- every component state
- every internal note
- every page version from earlier rounds
They usually need a curated review set:
- the current approved direction
- enough context to understand the flow
- obvious page ordering
- readable copy and interface details
- a file that opens quickly on ordinary hardware
When teams skip that curation step, they create the classic approval mess: a giant export, confusing page names, inconsistent crops, and feedback that refers to “the one after the other homepage concept.”
Start by deciding what kind of approval this really is
Not every PDF review asks the same question.
Before exporting anything, decide which of these the reviewer is actually approving:
- visual direction
- copy and claims
- final layout
- stakeholder-ready sequence
- print-friendly reference
- archival signoff
That choice affects what belongs in the PDF.
If the review is mainly about messaging, you may not need every responsive breakpoint. If the review is about final design signoff, you probably do need the full set of key screens. If the file is going to procurement or legal, clean pagination and file naming matter more than animation fidelity.
One simple rule helps here: only include the pages required for the current decision. Everything else creates noise.
Build a review-specific page set in Figma
The easiest way to keep approvals clean is to assemble a review-specific page or section before export.
That review set should usually:
- remove abandoned options
- put screens in the order the reviewer will read them
- use explicit frame names
- include title or divider slides when the file covers multiple sections
- separate desktop and mobile views clearly when both matter
For example, a website approval PDF might be arranged like this:
- cover page with project and date
- homepage desktop
- homepage mobile
- pricing page desktop
- pricing page mobile
- appendix for supporting variants
That is much easier to review than a raw export of scattered working frames.
If your team needs to combine multiple frames into one compressed document, the tutorial on merging frames into a compressed PDF from Figma is a strong companion to this workflow.
Optimize for legibility first, then for file size
This is where teams often overcorrect.
They know the PDF needs to be lighter, so they compress aggressively without checking whether type, form fields, charts, or table rows still read clearly. Then the client zooms to 200 percent, sees artifacts, and loses confidence in the work.
A better review pass asks two questions in order:
- Is the PDF readable at the size the client will actually use?
- Is it light enough to send and open comfortably?
That order matters. The file should not be bloated, but clarity comes first. A 4 MB PDF that opens instantly and reads well is often more useful than a 900 KB PDF that turns UI details into mush.
TinyImage works well here because you can export, compress, compare, and export again without leaving Figma for another app. That shortens the loop dramatically.
If file size is still getting out of hand, review:
- oversized full-page imagery
- duplicated visual pages that are not required for approval
- unnecessary appendices
- frames exported at larger dimensions than the review requires
The tutorial on compressing PDF files in Figma using TinyImage is useful once the review set itself is already clean.
Treat annotations and context as part of the package
A review PDF is not only images of screens. It is also a set of instructions for how to read them.
That does not mean covering the file in sticky notes. It means adding just enough context that the reviewer does not invent their own.
Useful context can include:
- version date
- what changed since the last review
- which sections are final versus still provisional
- where feedback should focus
- whether the mobile view is included for layout approval or only as a reference
Even a single cover page that says “Please review homepage structure, pricing hierarchy, and CTA copy only” can improve the quality of feedback.
Without that framing, clients often comment on the wrong layer of the work because the PDF looks more finished than the decision actually is.
Keep one export for review and another for records
Many teams try to make one PDF serve every purpose:
- client approval
- internal archive
- legal record
- implementation reference
That usually creates a file that is too heavy and too broad for the actual reviewer.
A better pattern is to separate them:
- a client review PDF with only the required pages
- an internal archive PDF or Figma page with fuller context
This also makes version control easier. Instead of sending “final-v7-approved-really-final.pdf”, you can store a predictable sequence:
acme-homepage-review-2026-06-08.pdfacme-homepage-archive-2026-06-08.pdf
That naming discipline sounds minor, but it prevents a lot of confusion once approvals get forwarded through email threads.
A practical checklist before you export
Before sending the file, check:
- the PDF only includes screens needed for the current approval
- frame names and page order are easy for a client to reference
- desktop and mobile views are clearly labeled
- small UI text and data tables remain readable
- file size is reasonable for email or shared-drive upload
- the cover page or intro makes the review goal explicit
- the file name includes project and date
If one stakeholder needs a broader reference pack and another only needs the current route, make two files. That is faster than managing confused feedback later.
Where TinyImage fits best
TinyImage does not decide which screens belong in a review. That still takes judgment from design, account management, and whoever owns the approval step.
What it removes is the wasteful middle process where a team exports a raw PDF from Figma, opens another tool to compress it, renames it in Finder, rechecks it in Preview, and repeats the whole loop because the text got too soft.
If your team sends design approvals as PDFs more than once a month, that is enough reason to standardize the workflow around TinyImage. The goal is not just “smaller PDFs.” The goal is faster approvals with fewer misunderstandings and fewer bloated review packages.
Read as Markdown Related resource index Site index for AI agents
Pro Bundle