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 patch is a stain 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 be balanced, shouldn't destroy the image, and should alter it as little as possible.
Before using a patch on an image, a series of questions can be asked:
- Is the chosen image the right one?
- Can the design elements (not the patch) to be placed on top 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 questions such as where to locate the patch or how it should look can be asked. Try to make the patch part of the identity of that image by using design elements to integrate it. There are more than enough options before falling into the blurred destructive smoke cloud that occupies almost a quarter of the image.
