Embroidery Filter

Not directly. What you get is an image, and machines need a stitch file — .dst, .pes, .exp — with a stitch order and colour changes in it. A digitiser produces that from artwork. The image is a very good brief for them, because it settles what the finished patch should look like before anyone starts.

One clear subject, a plain background and even light. Pets, faces, single objects and logos all convert well, because real embroidery shines on bold shapes that needle and thread can carry.

Broadly yes, and that is the thing to check every time. Markings, pose and colour carry through; very fine detail does not, exactly as it would not in real stitching. If a defining detail disappears, name it explicitly in the prompt and run again.

Yes. Describe the palette you want — three colours, high contrast, a cream border — and the conversion follows it. Restricting the count usually looks more authentic than letting it sample the whole photograph, because real patches are limited by how many thread changes are worth making.

On bold, simple marks, yes. Fine lettering is where it struggles, for the same reason it struggles in the real craft: small type has to be stitched larger than people expect. Keep any wording short and heavy if it matters.