When I went to google to try to grab a copy of this photo to respond to @CalmBrain's prompt, I was not surprised to find that the available scans were pretty far off, in some cases quite dramatically so. Basically, they're all too bright by at least stop or two and most have too high a contrast, with shadow detail that has been brought up too far.
This is representative of a general problem with presenting historical photographs, which is that not only technology but also standards and preferences for contrast in photographic prints have inevitably changed over the course of decades or centuries. The contemporary viewer expects a much punchier contrast than a viewer in the 40's and 50's, with more visible detail even in small format photos, and we can routinely achieve those things.
Now, in many cases, it's hard to say whether the modern interpretation of contrast in a print might be one that would actually please the photographer more had they the ability to easily produce it at the time. Or, in the case of some media, how much the extant copies have faded from their original appearance.
In DeCarava's case, that is definitely not true; he was a very opinionated darkroom printer and for him, contrast carried important political and philosophical meaning. He avoided setting true white and black points and put a lot of visual information into shadow tones in a way that might appear muddy to someone who is used to looking at photos on a monitor or on most museum or gallery walls. And in many of his photos, dark scenes shot in low available light were rendered in a way that really evoked how dim those rooms were. It can be hard not to instinctively squint when looking at some of them.
Anyway, some of these search results are from places that should Know Better. Then again, scanning really well, whether from a negative or from a print, is often quite difficult, as many of you know. That's true even when you aren't trying to respect someone else's original interpretation.
Since this was just for what should have been a five second post, I wasn't looking to put a ton of effort into solving this problem, so I just grabbed one of the search results and tweaked it to be vaguely in the ballpark of how it looks in my copy of The Sweet Flypaper of Life, a 2018 reprint for which Sherry Turner DeCarava signed off on the quality of the reproduction. I have a few other DeCarava books, including one that might possibly have been a better reference, but this was the only one I could immediately put my hands on.