It does not entirely do justice to the film, nor reveal potential problems with your developing routine, to judge from the output of a flatbed scanner such as the V800. For a more reliable assessment of negative quality, you should examine the negatives directly. Use a light table and a loupe with ~10x magnification to view the negatives. It takes some time to learn to read negatives – density is where you don't expect it, and vice versa – but you will be able to assess the tonal range, sharpness and grain size this way much more reliably than by estimating the output from a scanner.
To illustrate the difference, here's a 100% crop from the centre of a negative (roughly 1/8 of the negative area) scanned with the Epson V370 at 2400x2400dpi (what I gather to be its native resolution, i.e. no interpolation):
Here's the same thing, using a digital camera (Fuji X-E1 with Minolta MD W.Rokkor 28mm f/2.8 and 14mm extension tube, shot at f/8 unless I misremember):
All I've done in both cases is the crop: there's no sharpening, no playing with the curves, and no inversion. (Film was Fomapan 400 rated at EI400, developed in Ilfotec DD-X.)
If you don't have access to a proper light table, you can try shining some light onto a diffusing surface (a somewhat opaque screen of some kind) and place the negatives against this surface. If you have a tablet computer, you could even try and make it display a blank white screen and view your negatives against that. A more professional apparatus is desirable, but these tricks go a long way.
Finally, the quality of a negative is not entirely an objective matter. What is the intended use of the negatives? Will you make silver prints from them? (If so, will you be using a condenser or a diffuser enlarger?) Will you scan them for display on the web? (If so, is it important to have a high-resolution version available?) Will you scan them to make ink prints? Or something else entirely? Slightly different qualities in the negative may be desirable under different circumstances. Some people also prefer more contrasty negatives than others, and this is an aesthetic preference more than anything else. I, for instance, like the photo you posted very much and don't mind the loss of shadow detail in the tree trunks, but others would object. (Though I suspect that the scanner may be responsible for at least some of that loss of dynamic range – take a direct look at the negatives and you may be surprised!)