white balance

[thepriceizrite]

I have never gotten creative with white balance in my photography, so (for example) if it is sunny, I use a sunny white balance, etc. But earlier today, I took the picture on the right and I decided to use a tungsten white balance to make the shot more interesting by giving it a blue-ish tint. I thought it would make the picture look less common/usual and thus more captivating to the eye. But I am not sure it worked. What do you think of this white balance? Do you think it makes the shot interesting, or does it look unnatural and strange? The photo on the left is my adjustment to give it a bit more color while still maintaining the blue tint. Which one do you think looks better?

More broadly, when do you use different white balances to create more interesting shots? It's not something that I have much experience with.

 

[IzzieK]

I like both moods of this shots...make's it more interesting.

 

[sonicbuffalo]

neither

 

[480sparky]

The issue is not which one I prefer.

It's more which one you prefer, and which one better communicates the intent of your image.

 

[enzodm]

More broadly, when do you use different white balances to create more interesting shots? It's not something that I have much experience with.

white balance is a procedure aimed at turning white what should be white in the picture, and adjusting the rest as a consequence. This is its normal use, and by the way needed at shoot time only if you shoot JPEG, because it can be done after if you shoot RAW.
Said that, if you like it, you can use it to have some color cast in your pictures -somewhat standardized but not decided by you. Such kind of operations are better done in post processing, where you have the opportunity to choose whatever effect you want, instead of a specific fixed setting made for a different aim.