The object of this first part of a two part exercise is to take three shots of the same subject (with white balance set to Daylight) in full sun, in shade and at the end of the day with low sun.
As it happened I had no friends face available on the day I was shooting so I decided to use a chair as a) I thought it would stand out quite well against the lawn on which it was placed and b) the colour was very neutral.
As it transpired I thought the colour was too neutral so used this stool instead:-
In the first shot the colour of the seat is washed out and the texture of the wood is not obvious but my recollection was that the effect of the light was not as strong my head was telling me essentially that this was the same stool and that nothing, including its colour had changed too much yes it was brightly lit but the blueness of the seat remained and did not appear as washed out as in the photo.
This shot gives a good idea of the differences in colour as seen by the camera highlighted by the two patches of light on the seat. While I was aware of the patches I was not as much as the camera appears to be of the disparity in the light and shade. Being in the shade makes the top darker as one would expect but that was not how dark I recall seeing it. I basically just saw the stool and did not see as dramatic a colour change.
This last shot is the most accurate in terms of my perception of the stool, the top is, or is near enough to, that shade of light blue and the wood has that washed out look while still retaining its grain.
I repeated this exercise again after writing this (without taking photos just, as it were, to check again my perceptions) and as far as I could tell again my perception of the colour changes were not as variable as the cameras.