A patch is always a scar on an image
The question is wrongly formulated, you are for granted the existence of another element as something of correct use and valid as a design element in any image: a patch.
I think before asking if you behead a character inside an image with a patch, you should ask:
Is it necessary to use a patch over an image?
One of my principles in design is to try to avoid as much as possible the use of patches on an image. Why?
- The photographer has used much of his professionalism to locate, frame and arrange each of the elements in the composition of that image. A stain on it is a patch to the exercise of another professional.
- As decorative as it may be, a patch is always a scar on an image
- Any design element that is placed on top of an image must accompany it balancedly, not destroy it and trying to alter it as less as possible
Before using a patch on an image, a series of questions can be asked:
- The chosen image is the right one?
- The design element (not the patch) to be placed on top can find a better place to be located without altering the image
If after all this analysis, the use of a patch is unavoidable, then the consequent questions such as where to locate the patch can enter. Try to make the patch part of the identity of that image using design elements to integrate it. There are more than enough before falling into the destructive blurred smoke cloud that occupies almost a quarter of the image.
