# Talk:Bliss (photograph)

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)

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:Direct quote attributed to O'Rear who states a date Interview with O'Rear, in which the journalist states the dateEverything elseThere 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)

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)