Yes, including resolution (like 1920x1080 or 4K) in image file names is possible and often beneficial. It means embedding the pixel dimensions (width and height) directly within the filename itself, acting as a clear identifier separate from other naming components like descriptive keywords or dates. This provides an immediate visual cue about the image's size without needing to inspect file properties.

This practice is commonly used in workflows needing multiple resolution versions. For instance, a photographer might name files Portrait_jdoe_6000x4000.jpg for the original and Portrait_jdoe_1920x1080.jpg for a web-optimized version. Web developers might include resolution in filenames like banner_hero_3840x2160.jpg and banner_hero_1024x576.jpg to easily manage assets for responsive layouts or different screen sizes, using tools like image processors or CDNs.

The main advantage is instant clarity for human organization and scripting, speeding up asset selection for specific uses. However, it can make filenames longer and potentially look cluttered. If the image resolution itself changes later, the filename becomes outdated unless manually updated, which introduces maintenance overhead. There are no direct ethical implications, but it subtly embeds technical metadata externally. While useful in specific scenarios, many modern systems use embedded EXIF/IPTC metadata or asset databases for size info instead to avoid filename complexity.