Hi John, I have only seen a few of the images from the "Women..." book and while they seemed pretty mainstream editorial I didn't think any were sub- Leibowitz quality. In fact, they seemed a little less about Annie than most of her stuff, and more about letting the remarkable aspect of her subject speak for itself. Even if I didn't feel I gained any emotional insight, I certainly was informed about what their "special"ness was made of. Sort of like good annual report portraiture as opposed to the fine art approach she used with the Olympic athletes, which featured prominantly the direction of Ms Leibowitz. What is it about this work that doesn't appeal to you? I'll look at the book next time I get in a bookstore, in order to become a more informed foil (better for the parry and thrust, don't cha know). By the way, I know what you mean about her early work. I've seen some great photographs of her family, 35mm b&w, from pre- Rolling Stone days that was very engaging. Very concise content compared to the broad heroic brush applied to her celebrity subjects... t(posted 8799 days ago)I have to admit to admiration of a career well built tempered with a desire to see something deeper. Maybe when she gets older...