Color rounds stall for a predictable reason: everyone treats "color approval" as one decision when it is three - a creative look sign-off, a technical pass check, and a final delivery review - and nobody says out loud which one is happening. Split them, put each on its own review round, and stay honest about what a review link can and cannot judge: intent gets signed off on any screen; final color accuracy gets verified on a calibrated display. This guide covers the three-stage workflow, what to check in each round, and the version discipline that keeps grades straight.
Why color rounds stall
Three stall patterns repeat across every team. The screen zoo problem: the client's laptop renders differently than your grading display, so "it looks green here" and "it looks fine here" are both true and both useless. The unscoped round problem: "let us know on color" invites every viewer to re-litigate the grade from taste, with no owner. The moving-target problem: grade feedback arrives while the edit is still changing, so approved looks drift out from under themselves. All three are solved by structure, not by better monitors on the client side.
The three-stage color approval
Stage 1 - Creative look sign-off. One decision owner (not the whole client org) approves the direction on a representative set of shots: the hero look, the hardest matching shots, a skin-tone close-up. This is a taste decision and it needs exactly one taste authority. Round one ends with "the look is approved."
Stage 2 - Technical pass check. With the look locked, the full timeline gets checked for execution: shot-to-shot matching within scenes, skin-tone consistency across lighting setups, exposure holds, brand colors hitting spec (that logo blue), and no clipped highlights in deliverable-critical shots. Flags here are factual, not preferential - "shot 41 drifts warmer than its neighbors" fixes faster than "scene four feels off."
Stage 3 - Final delivery review. The graded master gets its own review round on the delivery export, after the delivery format is settled - because encoding shifts color, and approving a grade on a preview codec then delivering a different one invites a surprise. This is where the final approval lands, on record, on the version that ships.
What reviewers can actually judge on their screens
The calibrated-display honesty, stated plainly: a review link on a client's uncalibrated laptop is where intent gets approved, not where final accuracy gets verified. Clients can reliably judge relative things on any reasonable screen - "shot 12 does not match shot 9," "skin looks ruddy," "the brand red reads orange" - because relative judgments survive display differences far better than absolute ones. They cannot reliably judge whether true black is truly at spec or whether saturation hits broadcast-legal limits; that is the colorist's display's job. Build the workflow around this: relative judgments go to the client round, absolute verification stays in the suite, and nobody pretends the laptop is a reference monitor. This is also where proxy review matters - review streams are compressed, so pixel-peeping fine grain or subtle gradients belongs in the suite, not on the link.
Version discipline for grades
Grades iterate fast - pass one, notes, pass two - and without version hygiene, "the newer grade" becomes folklore. The working pattern is the same versioning discipline as the edit itself (video versioning, the complete guide): each grade pass uploads as a new version, feedback pins to the version it describes, the look approval attaches to the version that earned it, and side-by-side comparison settles "did the grade change?" arguments in seconds instead of memory. When a client asks for "the version from Tuesday," Tuesday is a version, not a vibe.
Sequence with the rest of post
Color approval belongs after picture lock and before final delivery - grading a moving cut is paid-for twice. The ladder view: edit through picture lock, then look sign-off, then the technical pass across the locked timeline, then VFX finals drop in and get checked for grade match, then the delivery master gets stage three. Teams that run look approval early (on selected shots during the fine cut) buy schedule room without losing control - as long as everyone knows an early look approval is directional, and the real gate is still stage one on the locked cut. The full stage ladder is in the edit ladder guide.
How this runs on a review link
Everything above runs on standard review plumbing: frame-accurate comments pin to the exact shot, versions carry their own approval states, side-by-side compare settles matching debates, and one named owner's approval is on the record. Frooty's honest fit: review links, versions, compare, and approvals are the product; color grading itself is not - the grade happens in your NLE or grading suite, the review link is where its rounds get signed off. The review and approvals feature page lists the surface, and the Resolve-side loop (where much grading lives) is in the Resolve client review workflow.
FAQ
Can clients judge color on a laptop screen?
Relative judgments, yes - shot-to-shot matching, skin tones that look wrong, brand colors that read off. Absolute judgments, no - true-black levels, saturation limits, and broadcast-legal ranges need a calibrated grading display. Approve intent on the client screen; verify accuracy in the suite. Saying this out loud prevents most color-round arguments.
Should color approval happen before or after picture lock?
After - grading a moving edit means re-grading every time the cut changes. Look development can start earlier on selected shots, but the binding approval rounds (look on the locked cut, technical pass, delivery review) belong after picture lock, before final delivery.
What do I do when two client screens disagree about the grade?
Redirect from absolute to relative: "don't tell me it looks green - tell me shot 12 looks greener than shot 9." Relative judgments are screen-independent and actionable. If the disagreement is about the destination display, offer the delivery-spec answer: the grade targets a known standard for the destination, verified on a calibrated display in the suite.
How many color rounds should a project expect?
Three structured ones - look sign-off, technical pass, final delivery review - plus contingency. If rounds keep multiplying, the usual cause is unscoped feedback (everyone re-litigating taste) or grade feedback arriving during the edit; both are workflow fixes, not colorist problems.