I'm glad you brought up Ranke because he is an interesting fellow. His big thing was to "only show what happened." We could go back and forth for years what Ranke was -- either a dry empiricist reporting what he saw as the facts and nothing but the facts or a romantic seeking the essential truth behind historical actions -- but I think it's safe to say that the discipline of history has moved past him and onto pastures new.

What is at issue more for the modern historian, in my view at least, is post-structuralism. Now there are a whole loads of very important implications of post-structuralist history on the discipline, but the one which need concern us here was first articulated in 1979 by Jean-Francois Lyotard in the Post-Modern Condition. He defined postmodernism as an "incredulity to meta-narratives" by which he meant totalising explanations for things and large scale historical thought structures -- concepts which historians use to structure our understanding such as gender and society and historical movements like Liberalism and science. These should then be replaced by "mini-narratives" which allow us a more personal and intimate grasp of the way that the past worked from the personal experience of the people themselves.

Now in certain aspects this view has become very influential indeed. Historians now do a lot of talking about subjective experience -- we now speak of how women experienced their gender, how lepers experienced their illness in the medieval period and so on through their writings in a variety of contexts. We also speak a lot more about representations -- rather than talking about things 'as they are' we instead look at how people perceived and constructed the world around them in a post structuralist framework. Examples might include Bewell's book Romanticism and Colonial Disease which deals with “disease representations...as expressions not only of the interactions between different groups of people (classes, societies and genders) but also of the interaction of human beings with a dynamic and changing world of microbes and parasites.”

That said, the effect of a post-structuralist world view has been limited in some places. Fields like global history make use of implicit models often derived from economic history. Understanding, for example why the west became richer than China and India would be impossible without some use of models derived from economic history. Also, on a practical note when historians like John Darwin write books spanning six hundred years and the whole of the Eurasian landmass it becomes very difficult to dig deeply into peoples metanarratives. Such a book would be both too long to write and to read.

That said, not all historians in any way have the same view on the matter. Some embrace meta-narratives and others reject them out of hand. In my view the most interesting historical work is that which combines aspects of the two and uses the subjective experience to explain a broader historical process. To take one example, Ruth Harris's book Lourdes: Body and Spirit in A Secular Age is ostensibly about the apparitions at Lourdes and their aftermath. However, what makes the book worth reading is that it makes use of the massive source base to illuminate the broader culture wars of the Third republic through a subjective lens.

The previous comment is great. I would add, however, that before Lyotard and post-structuralism, history had variants that were decidedly not romanticist. Though both men were influenced by Hegel, Marx offers a quintessential Modernist version of history at odds with Ranke's "tell what happened" approach.

For Marx and historians like him, the task was to interpret and explain [not just describe like Ranke had] change over time. This influenced countless historians, and still does, Marxist and not. In this sense history can be described as thoroughly modernist. This analysis of history, moreover, goes really well with Dipesh Chakrabarty's more recent Provincializing Europe in which he identifies that history in the tradition of Marx [not Marxism per se] is invaluable and necessary but, using a post-colonial critique predicated on culture difference and Heideggerian philosophy, it is also inherently limited because it necessarily abstracts, historicizes, and is inevitably an intellectual tradition of Europe that does not fully fit without some colonial remnants in post-colonial thought/countries.

There are some flaws within the premise of your question. Historiography didn't evolve the way you've been taught or the way you understood what you've been taught. I'll tackle these flaws in an attempt to provide a structured answer.

Now that historical models have fallen out of grace, has history become essentially romanticist with a focus on individuality and the uniqueness of every historical person/action? Or is that kind of Ranke-ism not applicable anymore either?

It's simply not true that historical models have fallen out of grace. What you are describing is a rudimentary analysis of post-structuralism, which was a counter-movement to structuralism - as pointed out by /u/azdac7. This wasn't an attempt to return to the empiricism of Ranke, a very influential historian who mostly focused on big historical events and data. Post-structuralism was a lot more complex than this and far removed from Ranke his methodology. Post-structuralism is essentially the embrace of subjectivity and context, not the return to empiricism.

While the term itself is rather vague and has become rather polluted across social sciences, there have been a few important trends associated with the term post-structuralism within historiography these past decades. There have been many influential academics who helped shape historiography in a post-structuralist environment. Michel Foucault whose earlier works certainly seem structuralist, ultimately made some important contributions through his attention towards the subjectivity of terminology. He still falls rather flat as a historian, but his contributions have been influential nonetheless. Jacques Derrida is another great mind who heavily impacted this period within historiography. While he is often critiqued for the fact that the basis of his methodology lies within the theories of Ferdinand de Saussure - his theories aren't really considered all that relevant in linguistics - , his methodology has still proven to be very useful and influential within historiography. His approach reminds me of Clifford Geertz his "thick reading" or "thick description" which implies that we shouldn't simply study human behaviour, but also the context surrounding it. When you compared their work to recent historical papers, these two seem like veritable pioneers.

Next to their focus on context analysis, all of these critiques also implied an increased focus on more bottom-up research and on human agency. This was the first step towards a historiography which heavily focuses on reflexitivity. What we mean by reflexitivity is that a historian should not only be aware of the context surrounding their study subject, but also their own context and frame of mind. These are all considered to be essential elements of historical research these days and they find their roots within this critique on structuralism. This all may sound very complicated, but it sort of translates to more open-mindedness and self-awareness within historiography. So post-structuralism ultimately didn't result in the complete abandonment of structure or models, something I'm sure wasn't aspired to by any of the aforementioned academics. Rather, it resulted in a more balanced approach where generalizations are done more carefully and are done with the unique context and with the historians own subjectivity in mind.

That's the official talk. Now for the thick description of this comment. Just remember that ultimately these are simply terms we use to help us understand historiography better. There is no clear line between a structuralist or a post-structuralist approach. Some contemporary historians still write great papers while focusing on a top-down approach and limited human agency while others fall flat with a bottom-up approach and a focus on human agency. These are just varying approaches by individuals in which we attempt to find common denominators. There is no perfect approach.

Still, these critiques on structuralism through post-structuralism has taught many historians who came after to adapt a more balanced approach. These days many influential historians basically combine both extremes, much like Derrida did. They supplement their grand theories with a more post-structuralistic analysis of detailed research or vice versa. This is especially obvious in three very popular trends at the moment, namely Global history, Comparative History and interdisciplinary history.

EDIT : Added Comparative History because it's possible the most notable one.