Please take this with a grain of salt, and remember I'm reading as a woman with a slightly feminist critique - there's a fine line, imo, between objectifying them through the male gaze and making them autonomous characters. I feel the focus of your story - the incredible books and the reverence felt for them - is a little sidelined by the descriptions of the woman. I see it often on Hive with male writers who get carried away with their sexy female characters and don't usually say anything so please ignore me if you feel it should stand and I've missed something!

... between two young women. The woman behind the counter wore a floral dress. Its swirling patterns interrupted by a name badge.

Why is it important what they wear? Through what lens are you looking at them - most definitely a male gaze here, which is fine, but I'm distracted. Why is what she wears a focal point here? If it's just the badge, so we can differeniate between the two characters, fine. But then:

Natasha.

Natasha had a soft, round; bohemian face; and manicured hands. It was important to keep good hands in her line of work - people would not buy mishandled books. She had been in this industry for a long time, and was good at her craft.

When a character's name has a line of it's own, it suggests she's very important to the plot - so much so HER NAME MUST HAVE A LINE OF IT'S OWN. Is she? Or is it just she's a bookkeeper, 'good at her craft', which is much more important, and highlights the care taken with the books? Because at the moment, I'm distracted by her obvious beauty, which I know you would be, as a photographer who captures women like this. But in your story, it's what she DOES which is more important. It's a similiar reading I have of the descriptions you use which sexualise the woman - how they breathe, move, speak. Again, why is important that she's slim, or sharp featured? By all means, describe her if you want to focus on that, but ask why you are focusing on those physical features and whether the reader can see why you are. Perhaps instead:

The woman behind the counter wore a bohemian floral dress, it's swirling patterns interrupted by a name badge. Natasha's manicured hands showed she cared about her line of work - people would not buy mishandled books. She had been in this industry for a long time, and was good at her craft.

Now, the other woman is clearly described this way because you want her to be classy and perhaps someone who appreciates books of this ilk - unless you've gone back in time and are a 1950's sci fi writer, which I concede is possible :P I'd suggest her making the narrative perspective Natasha's, rather than an omniscient narrator. It helps shift the gaze somewhat and makes the description more relevant than superflous:

She spoke to the woman behind the counter - a typical client, she thought, for the price the books commanded. The bronze turtleneck seemed expensive, and her blonde hair carefully kept.

...

The customer blinked beneath her glasses, a soft hand moving ever so slightly across the textured page of the demonstrator novel. She exhaled. The paper was exquisite.

One does need to part one's lips to exhale - saying her lips parted is a little too - sexual? - in the context here. The exhale is obviously a visceral reaction, a tender one, but doesn't need to be overtly sexual.

I hope you don't find my reading too 'woke' - and that you understand what I mean! Please feel free to completely disregard what I say - I can be longwinded at times in my effort to make myself understood. :) xx