At least in the social sciences and sciences, a photograph by itself would not warrant its own citation. You would refer to them the same as other diagrams, figures, and photographs:
- Figure 1.1, 2.9, 3.7
- Photograph 3.0, etc.
- Diagram 4.5
Most people use some form Chapter.Number series enumerating, which makes it simpler when you add additional material in an earlier chapter. Most document editors will renumber your figures for you appropriately.
Then when the photograph comes up, you would caption it appropriately.
Photograph 5.1: Crazy house on Hayarkon Street, Tel Aviv. Photograph taken by Sambach on xxxx.xx.xx. Released to Wikimedia Commons.
(If you are the photographer/author, you could simply state Photograph by Author, taken on xxxx.xx.xx).
In text, you would refer to Photograph 5.1 in the text, just like that. If you needed to, you could add an explanatory note for example to:
Photograph 5.1 ("Crazy House / Tel Aviv") is a prime example of what architects would call a maison folle. .... .... I would like to direct your attention to faux turret on the top corner of Photograph 5.1 ... blah blah blah...
tl;dr: As with all things, do what your advisor suggests. However, the style I give here is more appropriate in the journals and publications that I'm familiar with.
Fine Print: If you are a fine artist and you list each piece of work (or series) in your cv as part of your intellectual/artistic output, then you could refer to your works using author (date) or other similar styles. But doing so in the sciences and social sciences (and most humanities) will just earn you a bit of scorn. I would only do so if you had solo shows, gallery representation, or some other form of appropriate peer-review recognition of your work within the artistic community. I'm guessing that is not the case since we get so few fine artists in a.se but I'm happy to expand on this if you were.
Fine Print 2: If you are an architect and you designed the building, then you are also free to cite your buildings as separate works.