I’ve seen enough examples of experienced observers (and even experts) misidentifying perfectly adequate photos that I don’t put much faith in what folks say they saw (which would include a drawing). If folks make mistakes IDing photos that they can look over and consider at length, how can one trust their recollections of something they might have briefly glimpsed some time in the past? There is plenty of research demonstrating that we should take eye witness testimony with a grain of salt. To my mind, an observation with a photo that is blurry to the point of being ambiguous is equivalent to an observation with no photo at all. If an observation that doesn’t contain a photo is defacto “casual”, I don’t see why we should treat one with an ambiguous photo any differently.
(note that I exclude cases where a poor/blurry photo still contains enough information that a knowledgeable IDer can say “yeah, it’s blurry, but it can only be X”)