Let's assume I shoot 450 images at a wedding. It is practical or productive to give names to any of them? Other than the camera generated DSC ######?
If doing that enhances your workflow then the answer is yes, if not then it is no. Only you can answer if it is productive or practical to name the images.
Think of naming the original and/or versions produced from that original as adding one more bit of data to the image similar to keywords or ratings or comments. It's another way to make it easier to find and organize your library.
There are several topics in digital photography which invoke passionate responses. For example; Aperture vs. Lightroom, Canon vs. Nikon, RAW vs. JPEG.
With that caveat, I would propose that it is really up to you. If you, like I, keep all of your images in Aperture and use Aperture exclusively to find them, then individual image or file names don't matter that much. I have some 15,000 images in my library (small by the standards of some here) and the vast majority simpy have whatever name the camera generated. I find images through the base layout of the library and tools like Faces, Smart Albums, etc. I have never, since 2006, searched for an image by image name.
As for searching using the Finder,
- I paid for Aperture, why bother with the Finder?
- You can't really find an image anyway, as all of the adjustments are kept in a separate file.
- My base Project naming convention includes an embedded date and hint, as in 20130912 - Beach Trip.
- I always name images that I export, so that others know what they are
But finally, Aperture makes it VERY easy to rename your images when you import, so why not, if it gives you the least bit of extra comfort? That is one of the nice things about Aperture, there are many ways to do things.