Abstract
Vector graphics software has long monopolized the production of scientific images, with its reproducibility and precision tacitly accepted as the standard for scientific visualization. Using Procreate as a tool, this paper explores, through a series of biological scientific illustration practices, whether an image that is no longer editable can instead come closer to scientific authenticity. The study finds that Procreate's pixel-based logic, by reintroducing the margins of error inherent to manual drawing, reconfigures the relationship between the researcher and the data. The author argues that the bitmap aesthetic is not a substitute for vector logic, but rather a demystification of its epistemic hegemony. A limitation of this study is the author's background in agronomy, with an understanding of engineering graphics limited to university physics lab reports; thus, related inferences require further verification.