In any case the common alternative is to print the image, at high quality, on high quality paper, using an elaborately transformed good known as the home printer and assemble it into a frame (that in itself was made from something at x cost). Add the energy and resource cost of doing all that (and safely disposing the leftover chemicals and the printer itself when it expires, too) just once and then imagine changing that image every (let’s say) month. Over 10 years your “printed image” cost is.. ? We should do that comparison with the digital frame, whilst realising the digital method displays far more images at tiny marginal costs. In that way it’s probably not as bad as it seems, either for our pockets or the environment. We just need to crunch the numbers.