Your shot of the little girl, on film, answers the question I had; it's just the way you like to print.
For my tastes, it's too flat (the girl image) and does remind me a little of my own work during the 50s with both Ilford Pan F and Kodak's Panatomic X. I used to use Unitol at that time (my amateur status) and that was driven by one-shot economy - I think it was used 1:20 or something like that - and the fact that I knew no better: the few guys I knew who also had a photo-interest were equally obsessed with not seeing grain. Later, I came to realise that keeping developer in a bottle for a long time - inevitable using 1:20 and working on a tiny budget, doesn't lead to consistent results! I ended up using D76 1+1 for everything, once I turned pro, because of the rapid use of the chemicals and the fact that it worked very well on the films I then used, FP3, FP4, HP3, HP4 and TXP 120 (the latter only on 120 format because I disliked Kodak on 35mm b/w). I never went back to slow films like the 'F or 'X because I discovered that grain can be a real plus in a suitable print. Shake is more intrusive than grain, too.
Wish I had a Leica, but it would be a 9. Once you have the choice of both colour and b/w on the same shot (a major benefit of digital), it seems pointless to me to sacrifice one of the options. In any case, it's the thinking before the exposure that decides whether the image will work better in colour or b/white.