I think your photos are pretty darn good!  If I were to get nit-picky (you asked for it!) I would spend more time correcting for converging verticals and tilted walls (especially in the 1st and 4th photo) and minor barrel distortion (shower door on last photo). The 2nd photo is tilted to the right. I can tell that you have been using the shadow/highlight tool in photoshop but I don't think you are abusing it like many other photographers do. Maybe a bit dark too?

As far as lighting goes, I do the same thing as you pretty much using avaliable light (except I use Nikon). Recently, I have been experimenting with using hot-shoe mount strobes off camera (old Nikon sb-24's and 26's). Here's a pic from a shoot last week for a builder...

Two strobes in this shot triggered wirelessly. Both are on light stands and have CTO gels over them to balance with the tungsten lighting. One high and right pointing down at the bed and the other is far right pointed at the couch and fireplace. I should have zoomed the far right strobe more in on the couch but I was ready to leave and was in a rush and wasn't thinking so I ended up blasting the floor and fireplace as well. 

I have not really experimented much with flashes in daytime but I think the white balance gets tricky if you are using small strobes like I do. The light looks blue. I would keep shooting in the twilight and start using flashes to accentuate features of the room. Resist the temptation to nuke everything with a billion watt seconds of power! 

You can get shop lights at home depot for $20. Just don't put anything flammable next to them!

I also don't like the look of merged photos. It looks totally fake. There are a number of ways to do it and some methods do look better than others. Some agents really like the fake, almost painted look though. Maybe this topic will be my first active rain post....

As for color - I have started shooting exclusively in raw format and have found the tools for whitebalance correction to be soooo much easier. With the advent of programs that integrate a raw converter with a photobrowser and correction tools, like Photoshop CS3, Lightroom, Lightzone, and BibblePro, I think it's actually going to be easier and faster to shoot in raw. The only thing you'd need to export out of the program to do would be lens corrections. I haven't used it yet but it sounds like CS3 can do all of this in one shot. The drawback is storage of larger files but this is pretty negligible considering the cost of storage.  

Maureen - A raw image file is the data taken straight from your camera's sensor when you press the shutter. It is the digital equivalent of a film negative. In comparison, when you shoot a .jpeg picture, your camera takes the data from the sensor and then processes it (adjusts color, saturation, contrast, sharpness) and compresses it. Some information originally recorded by the camera's sensor is lost in this process. Though the amount of data lost is fairly minimal, I would rather spend the time and energy processing the raw file myself on my computer, than letting my camera do it for me. The drawback is that raw files are larger in size, and take longer to tinker with and usually require special software to do so.

If I am getting paid to take a picture I shoot in raw for peace of mind. For almost everything else, I shoot at my camera's highest quality .jpeg setting. I don't think the v705 has a raw setting.