Approve Creator Images With a Mobile Proof Sheet

Assign each image its own approval job

Start the brief with three placements: the social profile avatar, the image on the creator’s linked page and the image shown when someone shares that page. They can come from the same shoot without using the same crop.

The avatar needs to preserve recognition. The page image should make the transition from social profile to linked page feel consistent. The shared preview should represent both the creator and the content someone will find after opening it.

Ask the publishing owner which image supplies the shared preview. Open Graph uses og:image to identify an image representing a page; changing a visible page photograph does not necessarily change that metadata. LinkedIn’s sharing guidance also calls for og:image.

For an illustrated identity, judge the illustration on the same recognition criteria. Do not require a face photograph simply because it is easier to fit into a familiar template.

• Name the intended placement on every requested export.
• Specify the page layout and relevant sharing destinations before composition begins.
• Assign one person to consolidate feedback and one named approver to close the review.

Keep platform requirements separate from house tests

Give the designer two short lists: technical requirements for the destinations in scope, and internal visual checks. This prevents a convenient proof size from becoming an invented upload specification.

YouTube says profile pictures render at 98 × 98 pixels. It accepts JPG, GIF, BMP and PNG, excludes animated GIFs and sets a 15 MB limit. The render size is a reason to inspect a small proof, not an instruction to deliver only a 98-pixel source file.

For LinkedIn sharing, its guidance specifies a 5 MB maximum, minimum dimensions of 1200 × 627 pixels and a recommended 1.91:1 ratio. Apply those requirements when LinkedIn is a destination being checked, rather than treating them as universal preview rules.

Use 48-pixel and 98-pixel avatar proofs and a 320-pixel-wide preview as house tests. Label them accordingly. Technical acceptance and visual approval are separate decisions: a file can satisfy the upload requirements while remaining hard to recognize.

Make one comparison sheet for the whole pack

Request two or three candidates, then give each candidate the same proof treatment. Keep labels outside the images and use stable identifiers such as Portrait A or Stage B. Reviewers should not have to describe a file as “the darker one.”

Inspect the sheet at its intended display size without enlarging individual proofs. Follow that with the actual phone check. The sheet makes comparison efficient; it does not replace seeing the published placement.

• Show each avatar in square and circular crops. Treat the circle as a stress test, not a prediction of every destination’s shape.
• Add the small avatar proofs beneath each candidate.
• Place the proposed page image inside the selected layout, with the creator’s heading visible.
• Add the separately composed wide preview at the house proof size.
• Place the social profile and linked page views beside each other to check identity continuity.

Turn preferences into specific revision decisions

Reject an avatar when the crop removes identifying features or recognition depends on reading a signature or slogan. Request another source image if the usable crop would require stretching or excessive enlargement.

Return a preview for revision when its message depends on tiny embedded captions. Reject a composition that implies content the linked page does not contain. Keep comments tied to the placement: a stage photograph can fail as an avatar and still work as a preview.

There is a real tradeoff between consistency and fit. One identical export is simpler to manage, but separate crops usually give the designer more control over framing. Preserve shared visual cues rather than forcing identical geometry.

Ask a colleague who did not prepare the artwork to identify the creator and describe what they expect the page to contain. Use that response to uncover ambiguity, not as a substitute for audience research.

Work through a music creator image pack

Consider a pack for a music creator whose linked page contains live session videos and a newsletter signup. The available material includes a wide stage photograph, a close portrait and a session poster.

On the proof sheet, the stage photograph gives too much space to the venue at avatar size. Keep it available for the preview, but select the portrait for the social avatar. Adjust the portrait separately for the page layout if its framing needs more room.

The poster’s detailed lettering becomes unreadable in the reduced preview. Build a simpler landscape composition from the performance photograph instead. It still communicates live music without making small print carry the message.

Record the decision by role: portrait crop approved for the social avatar; page crop pending layout screenshot; performance preview pending actual share check. This avoids approving the entire pack when only one placement has passed.

Close the handoff with placement evidence

Have the publishing owner open the exact profile-link URL on a phone and test its preview in the relevant sharing destinations. Capture the actual page and share preview at normal zoom, not just the design mockups.

If the preview image is absent, investigate retrieval before requesting replacement artwork. LinkedIn notes that an image may fail to appear when it cannot be retrieved or is protected, even if its dimensions are suitable.

Keep a reusable record with the fields below. Where the page system supports them, include image width, height and a plain image description for Open Graph metadata. Mark untested placements as pending, and use blocked when a publishing issue prevents review.

• Identity: creator, exact profile-link URL and asset role.
• File: approved source, crop identifier, export filename, dimensions and file size.
• Placement: selected layout, sharing destination, phone and app or browser checked.
• Evidence: screenshot location and decision of approve, revise or blocked.
• Ownership: required revision and named approver.