If you are referring to purple/blue fringe, it's called chromic aberration and it's more evident is some lenses than others. It occurs when you have a very contrasty picture, i.e., a lot of black next to white. Almost all of it can be removed by some of the post processing programs, either directly, or simply by reducing the blue and red channels. This shot has a contrast range way beyond a camera's abilities to capture. You may be able to get both the barn interior and the outside exposed correctly useing HDR, or some post processing methods.

If you are referring to purple/blue fringe, it's called chromic aberration and it's more evident is some lenses than others. It occurs when you have a very contrasty picture, i.e., a lot of black next to white. Almost all of it can be removed by some of the post processing programs, either directly, or simply by reducing the blue and red channels. This shot has a contrast range way beyond a camera's abilities to capture. You may be able to get both the barn interior and the outside exposed correctly useing HDR, or some post processing methods.

I have not seen this mentioned, so maybe it is worth noting that if you shoot raw, there is NO color space. Color space is applied at export (Lightroom) or when you click Open ( Photoshop). In Photoshop you make that selection at the very bottom of the screen in ACR.

A second point is that if you open/export the image as sRGB, you cannot regain gamut by switching to AdobeRGB 1998. In my case, since the majority of my work is printed at a commercial lab, I immediately open in sRGB and it stays there. Prints are gorgeous.
Those who tell you sRGB is ONLY for the web have no idea what they are talking about. Yes, if you are printing with a high-end inkjet or a lab that accepts Adobe RGB, it "might" be worth it if the image contains the colors clipped by sRGB, but sRGB prints look fantastic.

In-camera white balance settings really affect only two things — the in-camera JPEG processing, and the JPEG preview and metadata stored inside a raw file along with the raw image data.

When you open a raw file in the right software, it will use the JPEG metadata to set up its INITIAL processing parameters, so what you get will look much like any JPEG you saved, or could have saved, in the camera. You can change the look as you like.

For that reason, regardless of whether I'm using a JPEG workflow or a raw workflow, I try to nail my JPEG settings.

MOST photo labs and the entire Internet and world of mobile devices (and most home and office computers) use sRGB. The dirty little secret of silver halide photo processing, used by the majority of labs, is that the paper cannot display much more than sRGB in most parts of the spectrum. So there is little advantage for the lab to use Adobe RGB, or ProPhoto RGB (which would cost them a lot of money spent on high end monitors!). My own tests bear this out... There just isn't much of a need unless inkjet printing is in the mix.

Check with your lab before sending them any files in a wide gamut color space.

If you are working with a high-end service bureau, or doing your own printing on a high-end inkjet, then Adobe RGB or ProPhoto make a lot of sense. The high end inkjets can print a lot more of the super-saturated colors found in those wider color gamut spaces.