Not quite sure what you are asking. The negative is very printable and holds detail both in the shadows and highlights very well. This isn't fully evident in the image above because: a) I'm not sure I've printed it optimally yet and b) The inherent limitations of scanning a print.
@Alan Clark@Ian Grant So, here is a direct scan of the negative done on my old film scanner with minor tweaks to the resulting digital image. I'm not sure it's where it finally needs to be but, better I think, at least as regards to contrast? The sharpness issue may turn out to be a negative problem - still checking.
If I were printing this negative, then I think I'd adjust contrast filters til I got a nice degree of contrast in the fully lit tree trunk on the left side. I wouldn't want so much brightness/contrast in the foreground, so this would have to be burned in so it printed down.
It's a pity if the negative turns out to be not sharp. This is something I get with 5x4 negatives now and again. Camera shake. One day I took five pictures of an old packhorse bridge in the North York Moors. Four were nice and sharp, but the one that should have been the best was slightly blurred!
In pictures like this, the "content" is very strong, so the "form" doesn't need perfection. Look at Atget, eh? - far from perfect. Sometimes a picture needs plus or minus development - or some other manipulation - to become "something else." This one doesn't need it. (I'm not saying the technique is lacking here - it's not.)
If the wind blows a few things, so what? Sometimes that makes things more interesting too.
In photography, sometimes men try to over-control things, me included. Women don't seem to have that affliction . . . The objective is to achieve something interesting; strange and otherworldly. Anything goes if the picture works.