Paper cheques were never free of error or fraud though. I don't think photos make them any less secure.
Despite what they'd have you believe, cheques weren't actually checked very thoroughly by the banks when they were processed by hand. I used to work in audit and one of the things we did on all jobs (the norm back in the 80s) was to ask the banks for a batch sample of cleared cheques so that we could check the name on the cheque matched the name in the firm's ledgers (i.e. that the cheque was actually paid to the person it was purported to have been paid to). Many times, we'd find cheques where the amount in words wasn't the same as the amount in numbers (usually accidental error) - it demonstrated that the bank staff weren't actually checking the words written matched the numbers which should have been a pretty fundamental thing for them to check! We also regularly found cheques signed by people without authority - i.e. where a book-keeper had the authority to sign cheques up to £x amount, manager to sign up to £y and a director to sign larger - or where two signatures were required, again the bank staff weren't actually checking to the account mandate as to who had the authority and how many signatures needed.
Just like today with signature strips etc., a lot of the so-called "security measures" are smoke and mirrors to deter opportunism and are pretty much insignificant to guard against organised crime/fraud or career criminals.