I'm going to have to disagree about the person shot - I prefer the original over the darkened version. You are right that the background is a bit distracting and I don't fault you for trying to edit it. To that end, you did a very good job at reducing the impact of the people in the background, even their white shorts. I'm not a fan of what the PP did to your subject's skin and, to a lesser extent, the cigarette smoke.
In the original, despite all that is going on (though to be honest, your use of depth of focus does a decent job of isolating your subject anyway), my eye still goes first to your subject's face. The color of his skin is different than the rest of the color palette in the image and it is sufficiently bright that it gets my attention. In the edited version, you have desaturated his skin to the point that it no longer pops due to color, and it is very middle of the road for brightness. My eye is drawn first to the bright ground in back and then, frankly, to his jeans before I get to his face.
As for the smoke, it just looks dingy to me. For all that we think of smoke as being dirty, it's actually pretty great at picking up light and coming across as wispy and airy (see any of the smoke photo threads on here). By it being so dark here, the image (to me) has an artificially dark feel, since we can tell by the light on his hair that he was actually in decent sunlight, not shadow.
Sorry, the pigeon shots are non-starters for me. It would have helped to catch the pigeon in the light, where the vibrance of its feathers and shadowing of its body would have made for a more interesting shot than the flat shade. Also, it looks like you did get down low to get these shots. If you're going to do that, fully commit and really get down. Shooting from this level is almost the same perspective we'd see if we were sitting on a park bench...get your camera down at ground level and you're giving us a perspective rarely seen, so it's a much more interesting image.
Just my opinion...