You get client approval on different file types the same way you get it on any deliverable: send the actual file, collect feedback against it, revise as a new version, and record a clear decision. The workflow doesn't change between a video and a PDF. What changes is the kind of feedback each format invites, and the mistakes agencies make when they treat each file type as a separate process.
Why file type matters — and why it shouldn't change your workflow
Every file type pulls the review in a different direction. Images invite quick visual reactions. PDFs invite page-by-page notes and copy edits. Videos invite timestamped references. Documents invite inline editorial comments.
The trap is building a different approval process for each format — one spreadsheet for images, one email thread for PDFs, one chat for video. That multiplies the channels, which multiplies the places feedback gets lost. One workflow, applied consistently, is what actually holds up.
How each file type is reviewed
| File type | Typical feedback | What to watch for |
|---|---|---|
| Images | Marked-up comments on specific areas | Feedback that references "that part" without a location |
| PDFs | Page-by-page notes, copy edits | Edits that overwrite the version that was already reviewed |
| Videos | Timestamped references in comments | "Around the 30-second mark" without a written reference |
| Documents | Inline editorial comments | Conflicting edits from multiple reviewers |
None of these require a different process. They require feedback that's attached to the work, in writing, against the current version.
A single review process for any file
1. Send the real file
Attach the actual file the client needs to approve, not a low-res preview or a link that expires. The client should review the same thing that will go out the door.
2. Ask for one decision
Frame every review as "approve, or request changes." A specific ask produces a specific answer; "thoughts?" produces a conversation.
3. Collect feedback on the file
Wherever the client comments, the comment should attach to the work itself: a marked-up area on an image, a note on a PDF page, a reference in a video comment. Context is what makes the feedback actionable.
4. Revise as a new version
Make the changes and upload the next version. The previous version stays in the history, so the client can see what changed.
5. Record the approval
Approval should name the file, the version, the person, and the date, so "approved" always means something specific.
A file-approval checklist
- The client reviews the actual file, in its final format
- The review asks for one decision: approve or request changes
- Feedback is attached to the work, not sent separately
- Every revision creates a new version instead of overwriting
- Approval names the exact version reviewed
How ApproveLite fits
ApproveLite keeps the workflow file-agnostic. Images, videos, PDFs, and documents all move through the same request: the client opens a review link, leaves feedback in context on the file, and approves or requests changes. One consistent workflow covers every file type, so the team isn't juggling three different processes, and where a file type has no generated preview, the original file stays accessible. For the full workflow, see the creative approval workflow for agencies, or how to manage multiple versions without losing track. If you're comparing tools, see what to look for in client approval software.
Frequently asked questions
Can I leave comments on video?
ApproveLite reviews video through the same workflow as every other file type. Clients leave feedback as comments on the work, referencing timing in their notes, and approve or request changes against the exact version.
Does ApproveLite treat PDFs differently from images?
No — the review workflow is the same across file types. The difference is only in the feedback clients leave: page notes on a PDF, marked-up areas on an image, written references on a video.
Do I need a different tool for each format?
Not for the approval step. A single workflow keeps the process consistent; you only need a dedicated tool for specialized tasks like deep video editing, which are outside the approval workflow anyway.
Share one review workflow across file types
The goal isn't a different process per format. It's one review workflow that every file moves through cleanly, with feedback in context and approval tied to a version. ApproveLite gives you that, for whatever you send.