[shuntress]

Consider that most of these photographs were (probably) taken with a relatively large device that is cumbersome to set up and requires an absurd (by modern standards) amount of light to get a usable image. If you account for the "convenience" of modern digital photography, the difference is significantly less (though still real, in my opinion.)

Devices we have now that fit in our pockets can display a good photo almost instantly. Comparably sized modern cameras (digital medium format) given the same control of conditions (staging, access, models, lights, post-processing, etc) will certainly produce results comparable to, "better" than, or possibly indistinguishable from even the best of these older photos.