Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Overcast skies are notorious for changing color in ways unseen by the eyes, thought I doubt it would change that dramatically in 1 sec.

In Lightroom, you can assign a white and tint balance to make them look more similar.

Quixdraw and chg_canon were onto something. More snow in one image will have a greater influence in your auto ambience setting. This color difference has very little to do with metering. Meters do not measure color, at least not directly. It is pretty clear that the camera evaluated color in the two scenes differently because of the influence of the white snow. And the difference is due to both a white balance (blue-yellow, expressed in °K) and tint (green-magenta). Setting a fixed °K white balance might work, but there is no guarantee that the camera will react the same for tint. Shooting raw will be a benefit, allowing you to easily match one image to the other.

In different lighting situations, where there are no subtle changes going on - using a colorchecker passport will absolutely nail the color every time. In your case, the colorchecker will get you very close.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

I do not see a significant color shift between the two images, but there is clearly a 2/3 stop shift in exposure. Close inspection shows a pretty significant shift in framing which changed the balance of sky and land. That shift in the proportion of brown (red) could have shifted the white balance a little also. Spot metering would have worked better for you here. Different Exposure Compensation would have been needed, but more consistent exposure would have been maintained on the bears. All that said, my guess is that you can fix this with a minor amount of adjustment in post processing.

Just as a comment...scenes that have a lot of contrast, like this one, can be problematic both with exposure and with AWB. I'm not a big fan of AWB, but have found that it can be especially unpredictable in situations like this.

tcthome Loc: NJ

Good rye on picking up on the shutter speed. At first glance, I would of guessed Auto White Balance.

Tjohn Loc: Inverness, FL formerly Arivaca, AZ

The greater amount of snow in the first picture causes the camera to read a slightly different gray scale.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

When your in AUTO anything you leave the decisions up to the camera, not you. So, in this case, you were set to AUTO white balance and AUTO exposure, and the mother bear and baby moved about 4 to 5 feet between exposures, so your scene did change from one exposure to the next so your camera AUTOMATICALLY changed the WB and EXPOSURE to compensate for the difference in images.
If you want consistent results you can MANUALLY set the WB and EXPOSURE.
OR, just shoot in RAW and change the WB in post.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

A perceptive color change is also due to a different exposure index.

Why Auto WB not cool?
My Canon is set to AWB all the time, easily adjusted if necessary in the RAW editor. But since WB not as easily correctable with a JPEG editor, my other camera I like to set the appropriate WB for shooting.

yssirk123 Loc: New Jersey

Shooting with sRGB as the color space will limit how much adjustment you can do in editing before introducing banding and other artifacts.

Jerry G Loc: Waterford, Michigan and Florida

The camera decided to use a slower shutter speed for the second photo, most likely because there is less snow, as Quixdraw pointed out. The only why to stop unexpected exposure changes is to shoot full manual. The difference between the two can easily fixed by adjusting exposure in post processing.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Not in a RAW file, such as the OP's situation.

RAW files don't have a colorspace. Digital editors do, where ideally the ProPhotoRGB is being used, an option that doesn't even exist in the camera, because: RAW files don't have a colorspace.

User ID

Well packaged lesson !

As you mention, raw files aren’t subject to auto WB. It’s simple enough to shoot raw+jpg constantly even though you only intend to use the jpgs. It’s like collision insurance, happier when NOT using what you’re already paying for. The “insurance premium” for shooting raw just to back up your jpgs is pretty cheap ... IOW you *might* need a bigger card.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Nothing makes me happier than AUTO-ISO and AUTO-WB, well, with maybe the exception of AUTO-TONE when I bring my RAW into Lightroom.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Yep!

Vaun's photography Loc: Bonney Lake, WA

Nice photos. I agree that your framing changed, which explains the shutter speed changing, and the combination explains the shift in color in my understanding. I'm guessing you were not using a tripod.

davyboy Loc: Anoka Mn.

Are you saying if I shoot raw plus jpeg instead of just jpeg I might no have to post process?

Photolady2014 Loc: Southwest Colorado

I was on a gimbal and tripod, tracking along with the bears.