Talk:Bliss (photograph)

Bucolic Green Hills

Sources for this name:

• ‘Bliss’: The photograph viewed by billions, Far Out (featured article with other possible good stuff to include)
• Charles O'Rear footnote #11 says this information was/is in the metadata of the image in Windows XP Beta 2
• There are so many sources repeating this, none countering it, I think we could be out of sync with the rest of the world not to include it

-- GreenC 20:37, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Is Far Out reliable, though? This seems to be the only mention from a source that could potentially be reliable, but then again they seem to be actually citing content from a YouTube video. We cannot use image metadata as a reliable source, and I did not find any other reliable sources mentioning this name. Corbis Westlight Creative Freedom CD-ROM also does not list images by name. Bucolic Green Hills might have been the original name, but it also could be made up, as it was only introduced in 2019. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 21:53, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I've accessed some of O'Rear's books (and books that cover his work) and will try to search through them to see if they mention anything. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 22:21, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

There are no mentions of Bliss or Bucolic Green Hills in Napa Valley: The Land, the Wine, the People, Wine Across America: A Photographic Road Trip, California Wine Country (2011), California Wine Country (2004), Beautiful Wineries of the Wine Country, and Wine Country. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 23:02, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

It's not made up. If you look into the JPG in the ISO of Windows XP, "Bucolic Green Hills" appears in the headline field in the metadata (see https://i.imgur.com/sbFGDTl.png). Other Corbis images store their titles in this field. This same name is also found within the Bliss TIFF file that Fujifilm provided. Unless I'm missing some guideline, I don't see why the metadata can't be used as a source? It's still official data; for example I've seen game credit scenes or liner notes on albums used as sources. The reason it wasn't added until 2019 is because it wasn't until around 2018 when people really started digging deep into researching Windows wallpapers and their details. Meadowtron (talk) 16:03, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

That is an interesting confirmation, but it's sad that reliable sources seem to have ignored that name completely. I've looked through Far Out and it seems like they have an editorial policy, but could not find any discussions about them at WP:RSP, so I'll include them anyways and the metadata back in the article. The original reference cited metadata from Windows XP Beta 2. Did the metadata change after in the official release? For now, I'll keep how it was before. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 16:17, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I think the reason the reference said Beta 2 specifically is because XP converts the default wallpaper into BMP during installation, erasing all of the metadata. In Beta 2 a different wallpaper was set as the default, so Bliss was just installed as a JPG. However, you can still manually extract the JPG from the pre-installation files on the disc of the final release, and the metadata is still present in the file. I believe this may have been why the original title was not widely circulated for several years, due to the post-installation file having no metadata. Meadowtron (talk) 19:51, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

We actually don't know who titled or described the photo Bucolic Green Hills. We know it was in the image that Microsoft used in 2000. We know they got it from Corbis, and that Corbis got it from Westlight, and Westlight got it from the author. However the "name" is more like a description, typical of stock photo sites ("Bucolic Green" at Getty). It might have been a name/description chosen by the author, by someone at Westlight, or by someone at Corbis. Who named/described it, or when, is unknown. -- GreenC 15:50, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

That looks like a consequence of the name being hidden in the metadata and not mentioned anywhere on the Internet until 2018. Maybe someone will contact O'Rear one day and ask him about that name. I know that we could not use an email as a reference, but it would be still good to know where the title came from. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I would assume that the stock photo agencies name the images, yeah. So it's most likely that the photographers don't bother to title their images since they're just given descriptive names by the marketing people anyways, and I doubt O'Rear would keep track of what all of the names are by memory. And of course, Bliss at the time was just one of many photos O'Rear submitted to Westlight. I think Bucolic Green Hills still works well enough as being an "original title" though. Meadowtron (talk) 21:45, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bliss (photograph)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Vacant0 (talk · contribs) 23:54, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Actuall7 (talk · contribs) 08:18, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I'd like to review this article. Creating this page in advance. Actuall7 (talk) 08:18, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I see that you are a newer reviewer, so if you happen to have any questions during the review, feel free to ask me. Considering that archive.org is still down, the interview Microsoft did with O'Rear back in 2014 is up on YouTube: . Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 08:58, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll start the review soon. Actuall7 (talk) 11:33, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Initial checks

• Earwig gives a 64.3% violation possibility, but most of it is quotes from this source .
• All images are fine and licensed.

Lead

• Terms like Microsoft, Fujifilm, and Bill Gates should be wikilinked as this is the first mention of them.
  •  Done
• "The software company re-used" -> this sentence feels a bit strange when being used to refer to Microsoft, maybe just say Microsoft?
  •  Done
• "the rolling hill returning to being a vineyard." -> this sentence is confusing as it isn't mentioned previously that it was a former vineyard.
  •  Done Added a mention.

Overview

• "lush green rolling hill and cirrus clouds" should be with -> "lush green rolling hill with cirrus clouds"
  •  Done
• There should be a fullstop on the image of O'Rear as it is a sentence.
  •  Done
• Should the link for St. Helena, California, include California in the link?
  •  Done No, California falls under a common word.
    • Additionally, California is also linked in the infobox.
• "have had the identical result" -> "have had an identical result"
  •  Done

History

• "also based in Seattle" -> Seattle isn't previously mentioned so I'm unsure why it says also.
  •  Done
• "was also considered the default wallpaper" -> "was also considered to be the default wallpaper"
  •  Done
• "but was changed due to testers comparing it to buttocks." -> this source used , doesn't seem very reliable to show that testers said this as it references a different Wikipedia.
  • That part is quoted to Raymond Chen (ref 22).
    • I see, but is ref 23 reliable?
      • Yes it is. See VG/RS.
        • Thanks for confirming.
• "default wallpaper but to buy" -> "default wallpaper, but to buy"
  •  Done
• "plane ticket, and he personally" -> remove comma.
  •  Done
• "the default wallpaper of the" -> wallpaper is linked here despite being mentioned earlier in the same section at "the default wallpaper, but was".
  •  Done
• In the quote, Half Dome should be linked.
  •  Done

I'll continue this later. Actuall7 (talk) 13:12, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing everything, continuing the review. Actuall7 (talk) 02:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Reception

• Why does Digital Camera World link to Future US? Digital Camera World isn't even mentioned in the Future US article.
  • I'm unsure why they are missing from that article that but they are owned by Future US (see here). They've been also publishing a magazine for a long time now.
    • I see, thanks for confirming.
• Other than that, no other issues.

Legacy

• "journalists speculated it might" -> "journalists speculated that it might"
  •  Done
• As ref 13 is also by Napa Valley Register, it should also have the subscription needed tag, similar to ref 3.
  •  Done
• The second paragraph in the Legacy section feels more like it should be in Reception as it talks about the popularity of the photograph.
  •  Done
• "Microsoft would contact him" -> "Microsoft would have contacted him"
  •  Done

Re-creations

• Should the Goldin+Senneby photo be moved to the Re-creations section as this is where its first mentioned? It can be left at the Legacy section is you think it shouldn't.
  •  Done Yup.
• "Aero in Windows Vista, and also" -> remove comma.
  •  Done
• Should list of photographs considered the most important be linked in the See also section?
  • If this photograph was not considered by some to be the most viewed in history, then I do not think that the inclusion would be justified. But because of it, I think it should stay as the article contains well-known (and important) photographs.
    • I see, thanks for explaining.

References

• Ref 1 and Ref 29 should have the subscription needed tag.
  •  Done
• Ref 3a states that the photo was taken in 1998, Ref 4 states that the photo was taken in 1998, and Ref 5 states that the photo was taken in 1996, so I'm not sure the proper date of the photo.
  • The year is definitely inconsistent among sources, 1996 and 1998 are the two years mentioned. However, in the 2023 interview O'Rear talked about how he took the photograph 25 years ago, which corresponds to the year 1998. This is the best indication we have that it was taken in 1998 (in most sources O'Rear only talked about taking the photograph in January).
    • I see, this does make 1998 the more likely year.
• Should Ref 14 use a ProQuest id instead of ISSN?
  •  Done

That's all the issues that I can see, good work on the article. Actuall7 (talk) 02:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. All done. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 18:02, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing everything, I hope I gave you an adequate review. Passing the article. Actuall7 (talk) 00:55, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 talk 08:43, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Bliss, the default wallpaper of Windows XP, was initially a stock photo? Source: Rooke, Hannah (August 7, 2023). "Have You Seen the "Most Viewed Photo Ever"?". Digital Camera World. Archived from the original on October 8, 2024. Retrieved October 7, 2024.
  • ALT1: ... that the lush rolling hill of Bliss, the default wallpaper of Windows XP, is now covered with vineyards? Source: Rooke, Hannah (August 7, 2023). "Have You Seen the "Most Viewed Photo Ever"?". Digital Camera World. Archived from the original on October 8, 2024. Retrieved October 7, 2024.
  • ALT2: ... that Bliss, the default wallpaper of Windows XP, was photographed in Sonoma County, California? Source: Rooke, Hannah (August 7, 2023). "Have You Seen the "Most Viewed Photo Ever"?". Digital Camera World. Archived from the original on October 8, 2024. Retrieved October 7, 2024.
  • ALT3: ... that Bliss, the default wallpaper of Windows XP, was photographed by a former National Geographic photographer? Source: Rooke, Hannah (August 7, 2023). "Have You Seen the "Most Viewed Photo Ever"?". Digital Camera World. Archived from the original on October 8, 2024. Retrieved October 7, 2024.
  • ALT4: ... that the rolling hill of Bliss, the default wallpaper of Windows XP, was captured after a phylloxera infestation? Source: Cain, Abigail (July 3, 2017). "The Story Behind the World's Most Famous Desktop Background". Artsy. Archived from the original on July 13, 2024. Retrieved October 7, 2024.
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/1909 Chinese provincial elections

Improved to Good Article status by Vacant0 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 12 past nominations.

Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 17:06, 15 October 2024 (UTC).

• Would you like to include the wallpaper itself as image hook? I think the nostalgic value it provides would make the hook even more interesting. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 05:47, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Bliss is still copyrighted right? DYK doesn't allow fair-use pictures to be used on the Main Page unfortunately. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it is copyrighted and owned by Microsoft. It would be cool to include the photograph but I'm unsure if DYK rules allow this. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 20:16, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

From WP:DYKIMG: The media must be freely licensed—fair-use images are not permitted on the Main Page. So the answer is no. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:44, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

• May I suggest the short-and-sweet "ALT5: ... that you can find bliss in California?" (or the passive voice but less funny ALT6 ... that bliss can be found in California?) as a potential April Fools fact? Leafy46 (talk) 03:41, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I'd rather prefer other proposed blurbs. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 21:10, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

That's too bad. ALT5 is the best of them all. Viriditas (talk) 20:21, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• Will be claiming this for review and will do the full review once I come back from vacation. I have to agree with Viriditas that the quirky hook is the best option here. While some of the other options do meet DYKINT, the quirky is the one most likely to attract readers. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:28, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

• Well, if that's the case then let's go with the April Fools blurb. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 13:11, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

• The article was promoted to GA status on time. It meets the other DYK article criteria as well such as length and close paraphrasing. Quotes are properly cited. A QPQ has been done and it was completed. For the purposes of review I'm approving two hooks, one quirky (ALT5) and one non quirky (ALT4). It's too bad the picture is copyrighted because ALT4 would have been very effective with the picture, but oh well. I will leave it to the promoter if ALT5 is to be held for April Fools, or if it runs as a regular quirky. ALT5 is the preferred option, ALT4 is more the backup. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:54, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Moved to WP:DYKAPRIL. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:24, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Not comfortable promoting any hook with 'can' in it as this can't really be recreated, so I suggest ALT5a: ... that bliss could be found in California? and ALT6a: ... that you could find bliss in California? for another promoter.--Launchballer 12:43, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

The date of capture

The article asserts than the picture was taken in the year 1998, but most of the sources point to 1996. I believe the confusion between these dates stems from two things:

1) The year 1998 is often mentioned but its context probably eludes some readers. That was when the picture was uploaded to Westlight as a stock photo. Source 1, Source 2

2) An article in Softpedia quotes O'Rear saying “I took the picture in 1998, when I was driving down to see my then girlfriend Daphne.” It's possible that O'Rear himself might have confused the two dates.

Take a look at an article from Bustle which cites multiple sources that contradict the given date.

• Bustle says 1998: "O'Rear recounted the story behind the "Bliss" photograph in an interview with Microsoft: He was driving on a winding road in 1998";
  • but the very first link they provide says 1996: "when he decided to stop and snap a photo of the idyllic countryside [...] in 1996."
  • then they link to PCWorld which contradicts itself by first saying: "Charles O’Rear’s iconic photo in 1996"; and then saying: "And in 1998, when O’Rear took his famous “Bliss” photo".
  • then they link to AdWeek which says 1996: "The backstory is told by Charles O'Rear, the photographer who snapped the iconic picture, aptly titled "Bliss," in 1996".
  • then they link to Cnet which says 1996: "It was a regular Friday afternoon in 1996".

The user Vacant0 made an edit on 8 January 2025 with the following note: "In a 2023 interview, O'Rear confirmed that the photograph was taken in 1998". Where is the source for this? DayronPL (talk) 20:06, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

User:Vacant0 is the primary investigator :) pinging in case they didn't see. -- GreenC 20:51, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

The sources that I've went through while expanding the article have used both 1996 and 1998. However, O'Rear only in one of those sources actually confirmed in what year the photograph was taken (surprisingly, the year was not mentioned in the Microsoft video from 2014). In a 2023 The Transylvania Times review, O'Rear said:

That came about as a result of me visiting my girlfriend at the time, Daphne. We were not married 25 years ago, so I would drive from my home in Napa Valley 50 miles to see her when she got off work in San Francisco. I would go through the rolling hills of San Francisco and one afternoon I saw green hills, the blue sky and the clouds. I said, ‘I’d better make a photograph of that thing.’ I always carried a camera then, but I don’t today.

This corresponds to the year 1998, not 1996. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 20:59, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Vacant0, if we knew the exact date and time it would be possible to check the weather that day for any obvious problems like a major rain storm. It's not a reliable source but would be information. I'm currently running a "deep research" query on Google Gemini with source guardrail instructions to see if it digs up anything new. — GreenC 21:47, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Vacant0, here's an article that gives the date of their wedding:

It was during one of his routine journeys that he took "Bliss" in a location he passed through during each and every visit. In fact, the act of stopping to take photos was so normal for O'Rear, Larkin didn't even know he'd taken the picture until Microsoft offered to buy it for six figures several years later, just before their wedding in June 2001.

In the Transylvania Times article, the date of 1998 is indirectly deduced from what O'Rear says. I don't think O'Rear is being precise. He might have said "25 years ago" rather as an approximation, a rounded number.

Considering the persisting uncertainties, I suggest we put both 1996 and 1998 side by side separated by a slash or something.

Also, I'd love to find out where the 1996 date originally came from, if possible. DayronPL (talk) 22:20, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

My thoughts on this situation: considering how long ago it was, as well as his elderly age, I'm doubtful he remembers the exact year (let alone date) Bliss was taken. At this point he'd have to look through records (if he still has them) to get more precise info. I'm not sure if it's been confirmed from a direct source that Bliss was uploaded to Westlight in 1998, however I did notice that it was not present on the Westlight Creative Freedom CD from 1996 but was present on Corbis Westlight Creative Freedom, from 1998. I'm not really sure where the 1996 date came from either, but I'd assume that he would've submitted it not long after taking it. I'm leaning towards it being 1998, but it's too difficult to conclude.

Semi-unrelated, but I honestly still wonder if it was really not digitally altered like O'Rear insists. Its description in CWCF3 (from 2000) says "This image is potentially a composite of several images, combined to enhance its conceptual appeal", which can be found on several other, more blatant digital composites included on the CD. However, I think this description may have just been retroactively applied to lots of older images on this CD, so I'm still not sure. That being said, I could imagine that some minor edits were made before submitting it to Westlight, like digital sharpening or saturation. Meadowtron (talk) 00:29, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

I think MichaelMJD or someone else already went over the potential weather situation back in 1996/1998, I don't remember which year though. Honestly, considering that O'Rear sadly never said himself in which year the photograph was taken, I could add a brief note which would say that something like "The photograph was taken either in 1996 or 1998. In a 2023 interview for The Transylvania Times, O'Rear hinted that the photograph could have been taken in 1998." to resolve this issue. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 11:26, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Right, I think the best solution at the moment is to list both of the two years until we get something more definitive. I wonder if it could be worth asking O'Rear if he still has records for the exact date in his archives, though adding that info would violate WP:NOR sadly. Meadowtron (talk) 11:38, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

I'll try to contact O'Rear. If he remembers the year, we'll at least know in which year the photograph was taken even though we cannot cite an email response. :p Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 11:55, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Well, no response to the results found by Google Gemini. I will be bold and change to January 1996 with the quote: "a picture I took in 1996", and the quote from Amateur Photographer: "'I passed this location many times and knew that for a couple of weeks every January the field becomes green and clouds gather for storms,' O'Rear told me in a recent interview. 'I always carry a camera and, one day, it happened – the clouds and grasses were perfect.'" Also the Yahoo News UK piece is quoting/interviewing O'Rear that piece also says 1996. -- GreenC 02:09, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

The 25-years ago quote is suspiciously round that sounds like a mental estimation not a precise year like he gives in the Sleek Magazine interview of 1996. — GreenC 02:33, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

There are three types of sources:

1. Direct quote attributed to O'Rear who states a date
2. Interview with O'Rear, in which the journalist states the date
3. Everything else

There are two sources for #1. Two for #2. Lots for #3. We can safely discount #3 sources. If there was nothing else to go on then #2 would be acceptable, but #1 is a higher standard. Of those two sources, one has an explicit 1996 quote, the other is a "25 years ago" statement that might be an estimate. I settled on the 1996 date due to the direct quote in Sleek Magazine. — GreenC 05:30, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 09:12, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Google Gemini

Extensive research results from Google Gemini -- GreenC 18:06, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Extended content

After reviewing the search results, there is conflicting information regarding the exact year the "Bliss" photograph was taken, with sources mentioning both 1996 and 1998.

Several sources, including an article from Sleek Magazine and UCR ARTS, state the photo was taken in 1996.1 Some of these attribute this date directly to Charles O'Rear or to information about when he submitted it to the stock photo agency Westlight. For example, Sleek Magazine quotes O'Rear saying, "People are still flooding my inbox because of a picture I took in 1996." UCR ARTS also explicitly states, "The image on the left is called Bliss and it was photographed by Charles O'Rear in 1996."2

Conversely, other sources, including the Wikipedia article you initially mentioned (and its cited sources, if available through the search), and a TikTok video referencing a January 1998 date, suggest the later year. The Wikipedia snippet mentions a phylloxera infestation clearing the vineyards years prior to the photo, and O'Rear taking the photo in January 1998 while on his way to visit his girlfriend.

The key to resolving this is to find a source with a clear explanation or direct, unambiguous confirmation from O'Rear that isn't a recollection many years later (like the 25-year estimate).

Here's what needs to be done:

Prioritize direct statements from O'Rear with specific date recall: Look for interviews or writings where he specifies the date and ideally the circumstances that help fix that date.
Examine sources that provide a reason for their stated date: For instance, if a source mentions the date it was submitted to a stock agency and has documentation or a direct quote related to that, it would be more reliable.

Cross-reference multiple reliable sources: If multiple independent and reliable sources converge on the same date with good explanations, that would strengthen the conclusion.

----------------

The provided search results offer several articles that quote O'Rear or provide specific details. Let's analyze them for reliability concerning the date:

Sleek Magazine: Directly quotes O'Rear stating "a picture I took in 1996." This is a strong piece of evidence if the quote is accurate and O'Rear's memory at the time of that interview was clear.
UCR ARTS: States 1996. While it doesn't provide an explanation within the snippet, as an institution, it might have done due diligence.

Amateur Photographer: Mentions O'Rear "photographed the scene using a hand-held Mamiya RZ67 film camera and the resulting picture was submitted to the Corbis picture library...34 When the company's software engineers were looking for a default wallpaper for the new Windows XP program, launched in 2002, O'Rear's hillside shot was the image chosen."5 It also says, "'I passed this location many times and knew that for a couple of weeks every January the field becomes green and clouds gather for storms,' O'Rear told me in a recent interview. 'I always carry a camera and, one day, it happened – the clouds and grasses were perfect.'"6 This article implies a January timeframe due to the conditions O'Rear describes, but doesn't explicitly state the year of capture in the snippet, though the overall context of other sources points to either 1996 or 1998.

Windows Wallpaper Wiki: States "January 1996" and explains, "Photographer Charles O'Rear was visiting his girlfriend Daphne Irwin in January 1996. He stopped by the side of Sonoma Highway...7 to take a few pictures... During this time the hill appeared to be greener than usual as a storm had just passed and there had been other frequent winter rains. Along with that, the vineyards had been removed from the field sometime years earlier due to a phylloxera infection...8 He would submit it to the Westlight stock photo agency... under the name of Bucolic Green Hills... In 1998, Bill Gates-owned Corbis would buy Westlight". This source provides a detailed narrative and a sequence of events (photo in Jan 1996, submission to Westlight, Corbis acquiring Westlight in 1998). This level of detail and a specific month lends it credibility.

Yahoo News UK (citing O'Rear): States, "The man behind the shot is National Geographic photographer Charles O'Rear, who was taking a drive through the Napa Valley in San Francisco in 1996 to meet up with his girlfriend Daphne...9 Along the way he saw a stretch of field that had none of the usual vineyards and so he pulled over his car, to get a closer look. He recalled: “I got out, took a couple of pictures, and kept on going. And the rest is history.”...10 Bliss never actually made it into O'Rear's book so he instead made it available through Corbis, a stock photo company that photographers used to license their shots. And it wasn't until 2000 that Microsoft...11 decided to get in touch". This account from O'Rear, as reported by Yahoo News, also points to 1996.

----------------

The evidence strongly leans towards January 1996. The repeated mention of 1996 in interviews and detailed accounts, particularly the Windows Wallpaper Wiki which gives a month and a sequence of events including the submission to Westlight before Corbis acquired Westlight in 1998, seems more consistent and detailed than the 1998 date derived from a 25-year recollection.

The 1998 date from the Transylvania Times interview seems to be an estimation, as you correctly pointed out. The Wikipedia entry that uses this relies on that potentially less precise recollection.

Therefore, based on the available search results providing direct quotes or detailed timelines, January 1996 appears to be the more reliably cited date.

Reliable Sources Found:

Windows Wallpaper Wiki ("Bliss - Windows Wallpaper Wiki"):

Date Given: January 1996
Explanation: "Photographer Charles O'Rear was visiting his girlfriend Daphne Irwin in January 1996. He stopped by the side of Sonoma Highway (California State Route 12 and 121) to take a few pictures of the hills with his Mamiya RZ67 medium-format camera... During this time the hill appeared to be greener than usual as a storm had just passed and there had been other frequent winter rains. Along with that, the vineyards had been removed from the field sometime years earlier due to a phylloxera infection...12 He would submit it to the Westlight stock photo agency... under the name of Bucolic Green Hills... In 1998, Bill Gates-owned Corbis would buy Westlight".
Link: https://windowswallpaper.miraheze.org/wiki/Bliss
Reliability: This source provides a specific month and year, along with a detailed narrative of the circumstances and subsequent history of the image's submission, which lends it credibility.

Sleek Magazine ("BLISS | Sleek Magazine"):

Date Given: 1996
Explanation: Directly quotes Charles O'Rear: "'People are still flooding my inbox because of a picture I took in 1996. '"
Link: https://www.sleek-mag.com/article/bliss/
Reliability: A direct quote from the photographer regarding the year is a strong indicator, assuming the quotation is accurate and O'Rear's recollection at the time of this interview was specific to the year.

Yahoo News UK ("This Is The Most Viewed Photograph In History - And The Story Behind It Is Fascinating"):

Date Given: 1996
Explanation: "The man behind the shot is National Geographic photographer Charles O'Rear, who was taking a drive through the Napa Valley in San Francisco in 1996 to meet up with his girlfriend Daphne...1314 Along the way he saw a stretch of field that had none of the usual vineyards and so he pulled over his car, to get a closer look. He recalled: “I got out, took a couple of pictures, and kept on going. And the rest is history.”"15 It also clarifies that he submitted it to Corbis (after it didn't make it into a book) and Microsoft contacted him in 2000.
Link: https://uk.news.yahoo.com/most-viewed-photograph-history-story-143433930.html
Reliability: This article also directly attributes the 1996 date to O'Rear's account of the events.

These sources, particularly those with direct quotes from O'Rear mentioning 1996 and the detailed timeline provided by the Windows Wallpaper Wiki, point to 1996 as the more likely year. The explanation on the Windows Wallpaper Wiki, detailing the January timing due to winter rains after a storm and the sequence of submission to Westlight before its acquisition by Corbis in 1998, provides a coherent and plausible timeline.16

While the 2023 interview in The Transylvania Times leading to a 1998 calculation is a statement from O'Rear, the likelihood of a quick mental calculation being slightly off after 25 years is higher than multiple other accounts and more detailed timelines being incorrect.

Therefore, based on the provided search results, the most reliably supported date is January 1996.

The iconic "Bliss" photograph, used as a default wallpaper for Microsoft Windows XP, was most reliably taken in January 1996 by Charles O'Rear.17

------------------

Here are the sources that support this date with explanations:

Windows Wallpaper Wiki ("Bliss - Windows Wallpaper Wiki")

Date Given: January 1996
Explanation: This source states that Charles O'Rear took the photo in January 1996 while on his way to visit his then-girlfriend, Daphne Irwin (now his wife). It specifies that the photo was taken on the side of Sonoma Highway (California State Route 12 and 121). The lush green appearance of the hills was due to recent winter rains following a storm, and the vineyards had been removed some years prior due to a phylloxera infestation. O'Rear submitted the photo, originally titled "Bucolic Green Hills," to the stock photo agency Westlight.18 Corbis, owned by Bill Gates, subsequently acquired Westlight in 1998.19 This detailed timeline, placing the photo's capture before the Corbis acquisition of Westlight, supports the 1996 date.
Link: https://windowswallpaper.miraheze.org/wiki/Bliss

Sleek Magazine ("BLISS | Sleek Magazine")

Date Given: 1996
Explanation: This article directly quotes Charles O'Rear stating, "People are still flooding my inbox because of a picture I took in 1996." A direct statement from the photographer regarding the year of capture is a strong piece of evidence.
Link: https://www.sleek-mag.com/article/bliss/

Yahoo News UK ("This Is The Most Viewed Photograph In History - And The Story Behind It Is Fascinating")

Date Given: 1996
Explanation: This article, last updated in March 2016, recounts that Charles O'Rear took the photo in 1996 while driving through Napa Valley to meet his girlfriend. It mentions he pulled over because the usual vineyards were absent from that particular stretch of field. The article further states that after the photo didn't make it into a book O'Rear was working on, he made it available through the stock photo company Corbis, and Microsoft contacted him in 2000. This timeline aligns with the 1996 capture date.
Link: https://uk.news.yahoo.com/most-viewed-photograph-history-story-143433930.html

UCR ARTS ("Charles O'Rear, Bliss, 1996 + Goldin+Senneby, After Microsoft, 2007 - UCR ARTS")

Date Given: 1996
Explanation: This source from UCR ARTS, part of the University of California, Riverside, explicitly states, "The image on the left is called Bliss and it was photographed by Charles O'Rear in 1996."20 While the snippet doesn't provide a detailed explanation for the date, cultural and academic institutions often undertake due diligence for the information they present.
Link: https://ucrarts.ucr.edu/education/bliss/

Plaque

According to User:Baltimorris Special:Diff/1317160284/1317160356:
:"Today, a plaque marks the location where O'Rear took the image."
That would be really cool if true. It deserves a photo itself of the plaque, taken by a trusted Wikipedia editor who confirms the location. Anyone go by that way? — GreenC 18:07, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

I was unable to find any news on whether this is true. Maybe someone from California could go and check it. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

I went and visited it in April and took pictures! I can go put one there later if nobody gets to it before me Baltimorris (talk) 18:30, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Wow, that's cool. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 18:44, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes great thanks, Baltimorris. A note to future photographers: choose the correct spot, where this sign is, because another editor made File:Bill Hill 10-10-2025 by Benji Friedman.jpg which is off base. It shows the electric tower and is too close to the hill, it looks to be directly on the side of Rt. 121, and not back a ways off a side road, as the original was. We can't add everyone's photo to the article, but feel free to add it to Commons and build a collection. -- GreenC 02:12, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Other bliss-like photos used by Microsoft

I was looking through the March 1996 edition of PC World and immediately noticed (on page 2) a very bliss-like photo of a landscape with singular tree as part of their Office 95 marketing campaign. I perused through the Corbis Westlight Creative Freedom (1998) stock image CD, which has the OG bliss and many similar images, but no match for the one used in the Office marketing. I'm wondering, is there a broader context/connection of microsoft using these types of images nobody has talked about? Of course it could be coincidence, but they're similar enough that I wonder if there's a larger history here by someone at Microsoft/a marketing firm. I couldn't find any sources that went into sufficient detail about their marketing strategy at the time. Clparish (talk) 11:46, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Is there anywhere I can see it?

For what it's worth, the MSN website from 1996 also has a field/hills + clouds picture, which originates from PhotoDisc. What I do feel is important though, is that Jen Shetterly (design lead of XP) mentioned that Bliss was chosen to serve as an evolution of 95's clouds design that was used in marketing. According to Brian Orr (composer of clouds.mid), the clouds were used in 95 to convey a "peaceful" feeling, so it's likely this direction carried over to Bliss and other similar images selected by Microsoft. Meadowtron (talk) 15:22, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

It's not a great scan, but the image is in this edition on page 2: https://vintageapple.org/pcworld/pdf/PC_World_9603_March_1996.pdf

I think it all makes sense from a branding perspective that there would be these variations on the same theme over the years. I was just curious how much of that information made it into interviews/etc. and would be interesting historical context. Clparish (talk) 02:27, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Added Special:Diff/1327101294/1328256551 - good catch. -- GreenC 20:17, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Interesting, this is very similar to Bliss theme-wise for sure! Some of the designers involved in XP have given their perspectives on the wallpaper selection (including Shetterly mentioned above), but citing it would violate WP:NOR sadly. I'd say the Bliss-like image from the magazine must've been chosen to correlate with 95's clouds theme, whether it had any influence on Bliss being selected 4 years later I'm not sure. Meadowtron (talk) 14:37, 19 December 2025 (UTC)