No, Sutcliffe was a community photographer, with an incredible ability to get the willing cooperation of his subjects. Atget's photos of people were lrelatively unsuccessful. (Sutcliffe's few landscapes are pretty nice, and with one he won a prestigious prize in Japan.) Sutcliffe has much more in common with the later Ravilious than with Atget. Atget's photos are static and calm; Sutcliffe's are necessarily posed (because of the awkward technology of the time) but nevertheless full of life.
Originally Posted by batwister
I'm a long-term admirer of Sutcliffe, buying my first book of his photos in the early 70s when I was a teenager and tempted by photography for a career. On studying them, I was humbled by Sutcliffe's photos, which turned me off that idea, probably for the best. I now have five books of his photos, and by amazing good fortune my mother found she had a signed original print. (You can buy modern prints made from his negatives, presumably now done digitally.)
Enjoy, that collection is a treasure-trove.