It is a bit noisy. I don't suppose we could try a noise reduction and see if we got any good results? The picture is remarkably stable in the article. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP!21:11, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Presuming there's no digital editing that would give an improved result, I'm going with Support. The stability kind of requires it. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP!05:56, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support The noise doesn't bother me -- I much prefer it to any smearing of detail -- and at normal screen sizes (which is how most of Wikipedia's images will be viewed) it's not an issue. Like Janke, however, I do wish there were more space at the bottom. Still, I like this as a lead image because it includes aspects of habitat and biology, rather than just being a clinically accurate photo of a chimp in an artificial setting, of which there are gazillions. Choliamb (talk) 22:34, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]