To me, especially the first photo shows what I think people are referring to as a washed eye, it may not be an official term, but I think it is a very descriptive term. Maybe it would be officially termed a patterned eye.
I can't see the second and especially the third one so much being a washed eye, but then I don't seem to have too good of an "eye" yet for looking at those type things. To me I think the second photo is also what would officially be called a patterned eye. It does not have that "Whiteish washed over look" to me. The last photo also does not jump out at me as being what is being referred to as a washed eye. But, it does not look like a halo to me either. Maybe described as a blended eye? So I guess that might be a patterned eye?
Now that got me confused again:
Pattern: "A daylily that exhibits variations in hue, value, or saturation of the base, midrib, or throat color, in such a way that a design is created beyond that of a bold or solid eye, band, halo or watermark, with or without simple picotee edging. This type of "patterning" includes, but is not limited to, daylilies with concentric rings or feathering of color within the eyezone or elsewhere. It excludes selfs, simple bitones, and simple bicolors."
What confuses me here is the inclusion of "Selfs":
Self: "The petals and sepals are all the same shade of one color. The color of the throat, style or stamen filaments may be different. If the petals and sepals have an edge, eye, midribs or other markings of a different color the daylily is not a self. In a complete self the throat, style and filaments are the same color as the petals and sepals."
She has a good eye for this type of thing maybe she can help us out.