A patch is always a scar on an image
The question is wrongly formulated, you are taking for granted the existence of another component 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 inevitable, then the following questions can be formulated, such as where to locate the patch or how it should be. Try to make the patch part of the identity of that image by using design elements to integrate it. There's more than enough before falling into the blurred destructive smoke cloud that occupies almost a quarter of the image.
