Which WB is preferred in RAW PP?

I went to a wedding last weekend and got to stretch the legs on my new XTi/50 1.8. I also took the opportunity to try my hand at RAW.
This is the first time I've dealt with RAW and it's also my first DSLR.
The shots here were taken in a dimly-lit, house-like reception hall, with all incandescent and candle lighting. I did not use flash in this photo.
In RAW format, viewing on my computer, the image looks more saturated and red. After converting to JPEG it seems to de-saturate and lose alot of color. (is this normal?)

What I used was PhaseOne's CaptureOne Raw Workflow Resource for this image. I used the dropper tool to capture white-balance, and used the white skirt of the left subject for a white reference.
The bride's (right subject) dress was a light tan/champaign color, though it's hard to tell here.

My question is this: When people PP for weddings or whatever else, do you always go for true white-balance? Or do you like to leave some ambient lighting in for mood/effect?
Personally, I like the amibient-lit photo better, because it adds to the mood and ambiance of the occasion.
What do you all think?
(I know the images need more PP, I'm just asking about the WB for now )

Thanks in advance!

(They were looking at the hired photog)
RAW Image: Only adjustment was fill light and contrast as JPEG

I would go with #2 if they were the only options, but if I were doing it i'd go slightly warmer than #2. #1 is waaay too orange.

Agree with Tim that #2 is in the right direction, but I'd work on some highlight recovery as well -- there is too much flash glare.

Indoors white balance will tend to be off because of the mix of lights -- you get a good starting point if you use Custom WB, but shooting in RAW helps to fine-tune these things! If you want to go artsy, you can always swing back to warmer, or B&W -- whatever floats your boat!

i would go with 2 and focus on PP this one and don't forget sharpness

tonylong wrote in post #4754880
Agree with Tim that #2 is in the right direction, but I'd work on some highlight recovery as well -- there is too much flash glare...

Flash glare...would that be from a flash? Because a flash was not used, and I seriously doubt I caught the Hired Photog's flash at that split second.
What highlights are you talking about? The light from camera left, kind of in front of their face?

Thanks guys

This is actually interesting. I had a similar situation where I used a whibal card to correct white balance and the image came out #2 as I corrected the white balance. #1 does show mood but I was flip flopping back and forth figuring out if there was a "correct" way of deciding which is the right way of doing things?

I know that it can be all subjective but which is really "technically" correct?

Start with the correct color, adjust warm/cold to taste from there.

NOsquid wrote in post #4757971
Start with the correct color, adjust warm/cold to taste from there.

Good point. It's simple when you read it but if you don't know, you just keep juggling things in the air.

S-Man wrote in post #4756007
Flash glare...would that be from a flash? Because a flash was not used, and I seriously doubt I caught the Hired Photog's flash at that split second.
What highlights are you talking about? The light from camera left, kind of in front of their face?

Thanks guys

Well, maybe not flash glare, maybe bright lights!

I was referring to blown highlights on the cheeks and shoulders, which may be recoverable by going to the RAW file and tamping down on highlights.

These things are the bane of processing photos!

Might just be the contrast adjustment on the jpg that blew out those highlights...it's particularly bad right below the eyes on the one wearing black.