jgostick

This function worked fine for me: 

I don't think this is something porespy needs to manage for people. If they want to use imagej funcs from within python, they can figure it out.

Many of these are done, so I'm closing.

Or, as I've pointed out on [the OpenPNM repo](https://github.com/PMEAL/OpenPNM/issues/2639), the ``network_from_porespy`` function could change the pore.coords?

I am no longer in favor if this `im_or_shape` argument. Probably these functions should accept one or the other, like ``def func(im=None, shape=None, **kwargs)``. This means that *all* other arguments...

These seem to be working well again.

Given that our new philosophy is the keep things simple and stop adding frills just for the thrills, I think we should forget about this. There is *ample* instruction on...

This all seems reasonable. As for the blind pores and percolating checks, we for sure still need to do these checks...it's not clear that we should attempt to fix them...

This is related to #849

There is actually a bug. The clearance is being removed from the particle radius after insertion, instead of being added to the background before insertion.