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.
I think its mostly the 'ghostly' documentarian in Sutcliffe which had me comparing with Atget. Ravilious strikes me more as a 'chocolate box' photographer - much more illustrative compositions and pastoral subject matter I think. There's more atmosphere, mood and artful subtlety in Sutcliffe's pictures, where Ravililious' are pretty flat and to the point. I don't really see the comparison beyond similar subjective concerns.
Originally Posted by BMbikerider
Yes the Sutcliffe gallery is still open just up the rather steep hill from the north end of the swing bridge which leads into Flowergate. Most of the prints there are for sale but inkjet only (for want of a better term) and not silver based, however they are still superb images.
Are there any original prints on display at all?
'Cows are very fond of being photographed, and, unlike architecture, don't move.' - Oscar Wilde