I would be inclined to compose the shot with some extra space around the subjects with the intention of cropping. There are those here who will differ, saying you should get everything right before taking the shot. I don't like to spend a lot of time setting up people shots because the people get itchy and self-conscious, and you end up with an obviously posed shot. I'd rather shoot several shots and throw out the ones with the eyes closed and the goofy expressions. My daughter accuses me of always catching her with a goofy expression. All too often, she's right, but that's what blackmail is all about.

In a formal portrait type of shot, it's a different story, and you have to evolve your own techniques for getting people to express themselves, whether you're looking for a smile, or a reflection of someone's personality.

One other suggestion that gets made is to take several photos, and to switch between landscape and portrait orientation. Sometimes, when you look at your shots, you'll see that what you thought would work best initially wasn't actually the most effective way to compose.

I find it unsettling that everyone seems to subscribe to the religion that if a person is in the photo the background has to be blurred. My preferred style was always complete depth of field, like Ansel Adams, even if people are in the shot, and I defend my position that this is a valid style. I came to realize I was stifling my creativity by not having the blurred background in my arsenal, and have sought to master it. But I still am disturbed by the "Blurred Background Religion"
The main problem with these photo portraits is the poor lighting on the face, not the background.