That's understandable. Sometimes it just doesn't work out. But in the end, I think your photograph is good. It tells a sweet story of a boy on a set of stairs, and I think it would make a very appealing print.
Imagine it with the hand railing toned down, and some of the top cropped off. That would bring real focus to the boy's expression, whether it's focused or not. Not all successful photos have to be sharp.
Neopan 1600, by the way. I have recently re-discovered a few of my old negatives, and what a great shame it is discontinued. I made some 9x12" prints last night, and I was remarkably surprised that I got less grain from Neo 1600 than I do from Neopan 400 in the same developer, and in the same print size. And it's very sharp too!
That's understandable. Sometimes it just doesn't work out. But in the end, I think your photograph is good. It tells a sweet story of a boy on a set of stairs, and I think it would make a very appealing print.
Imagine it with the hand railing toned down, and some of the top cropped off. That would bring real focus to the boy's expression, whether it's focused or not. Not all successful photos have to be sharp.
There's more to graininess than just the actual film and developer combination. Exposing the film more than it is necessary to obtain good shadow detail will increase graininess and lower the resolution.
The old 35mm magazines from around the 1950's-1960's always recommended using the minimum exposure required to get good shadow detail and the shortest possible developing time to produce a full tonal range on grade 3 paper instead of the usual grade 2, because that would provide the finest grain, with optimum sharpness and resolution.