Hi Mike,
Using the words “quick snap” is a rather dangerous starting point when putting a photograph forward for a critique.
I often shoot “quick snaps”, but often they are exactly that; a photo made in less than a second before others even know what was going on. In this instance though, I think you had more time than you realise.
Often we shoot quick snaps because we are scared our subject might see us capturing the image and object to our intrusion. More often though, people shoot quick snaps because they are reluctant to indulge the time that a photograph might deserve. In this instance I am going to suggest both of these considerations might apply.
I will assume that this in the one photograph that you made, and in all honesty, it is a reasonable starting point. What I have learned over the years is that you always capture whatever you can get in the first instance. But having captured that first frame, the next step is to look at how you can improve on the image. In some instances this might involve getting closer to the subject, but there are times when moving back can improve the photo too. This is one of those instances.
If you look around the frame you can see that you have shot wide for the sake of including the man, but also the design elements. The problem is, in shooting wide you have made the man look rather small, and you have lost impact in the environment.
Having captured your first frame, in this situation I would have then moved backwards, and zoomed in while still keeping the architectural elements in the frame. In doing this you not only make the man appear larger in the frame, you also add a sense of design to the photo.
So, the next time you are going to make a quick snap, capture it but then go the extra distance, whether it be forward or backwards!
Cheers,
Anthony