The OP is a beginner, they may not have sofyware for raw and may not want to use it.
Yes and no.
Personally, I take the view that this forum is for everyone, not just beginners, not just for experts, and nobody is a true expert anyway, we all tend to specialise in one type of photography or another and someone who produces fantastic landscape shots (for example) may not understand even the bare essentials of artificial light photography and, moving closer to home, someone who is great at portrait lighting may not know where to start with product photography, and
vice versa.
So, many of us try to give "correct" answers that may or may not directly help the OP at his or her current stage in the journey. If the OP in this case doesn't have either the technical understanding or the software to benefit from Owen's contribution
Garry's talking about setting the white balance when you process the raw data. This isn't a "fix" as there is no white balance at all until you render a bitmap (tiff, jpeg, psd etc) from the raw data (ie the view you see in Lightroom or Capture one etc is a preview bitmap). The white balance you "set" on the camera is just a value embedded in the metadata of the raw file (just like the date) that a raw processor like Lightroom will use for the white balance values when it renders the bitmap, if you don't specify one yourself: it's no more valid than one you choose yourself in the software. If you have multiple different light sources, there is no "right" value for the white-balance, that works for all sources - whether detected by the camera or chosen in post. (Although you can make all of these problems go away instantly in Lightroom by pressing V
)
then he may find it very useful later, and even if he doesn't then at least he will understand the point that you can only correct the overall colour balance in software (at a realistic expenditure of time) and that because of this it's vital to avoid mixing light sources of different colours.
Personally, I tend to bang on about Colour Rendition Index because it's at least as important as colour balance. My views have been informed by years of testing the various and almost always false claims of manufacturers using specialised equipment that not everyone has available, see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_rendering_index
I feel that photographers need to know and appreciate that no lighting equipment other than daylight, flash or the now obsolete filament bulbs have the potential to reproduce all colours accurately. It's always up to the photographer to decide whether "near enough is good enough" and we did have one guy on here, whose dad owns a high volume product photography business, who believed that his LED lighting is wonderful, but when I was producing high end product shots none of my clients would have accepted that premise - which doesn't make me either right or wrong, it just demonstrates what a broad church photography actually is.
I also bang on sometimes about The Scheimpflug Principle, even though today very few photographers use monorail cameras, because it's relevant. As it happens I'll be training someone tomorrow in product photography lighting. Everything there is shot on digital but Scheimpflug is still highly relevant because of the need to shoot some products at angles that are beyond the range of "acceptable" DOF, so a cut-down version of Scheimpflug has to be adopted using a tilt / shift lens to adjust the plane of sharp focus. For people who don't have the right equipment there's always the software option, which includes both image distortion and focus stacking but the reality is that a tilt / shift lens costs far less (when there is volume need for it) than computer time.
And of course we have SK66. Steven clearly has a good understanding of physics and he often gives highly technical explanations that will go way above the heads of many people, but I almost invariably find them to be very helpful. Again, I feel that it's important to give the correct answers, although it may also be helpful to give more succinct answers that everyone can understand too.
For example,
Normal house lights look orange because light has lots of different colours. As far as cameras are concerned it's called white ballance. This is a something you'll need to learn as a photographer, even outdoor light varies a LOT at different times of day. It's not really complicated but you'll need to check out a few youtube videos or read up on it to get the best out of your camera.
You don't have to use flash. But it is popular with macro (close up) shooters. I have a friend who used to use a bright LED torch with great effect.
As Dominic says flash doesn't need to cost a fortune. The yonguo flash he mentions are amaringly good. I have several mates using them, two prefere them to the much more expensive makeras own flash, I have a similar MCoplus? version that I tend to use more than my big name flash. Last time I looked these were around the £50 mark.
Off camera flash can be bought cheaply these days too, I bought a kit for a friend last week, the transmitter (goes on the camera) and two receivers (they go onto the bottom of the flash) so a 2 flash kt cost me I think under £15, that doesn't include the actual flash guns obviously but for one flash you'd be under a £100 even with a flash, off camera flash trigger, cheap lighting stand and a diffuser.
It's true that even outdoor light varies a lot at different times of day. If the OP (or anyone else reading this) really gets into this then there's loads of info available on the web, but there's no need to learn too much about the Kelvin scale or to buy a colour temperature meter, it's probably good enough to say that the colour temperature of flash and daylight pretty well coincide at around 12 noon, so shots taken at that time will match well enough in colour.
8-Shooting