I too, used to shoot a lot of real estate - high end real estate. My thoughts on the images are that they look way too fake - the colors don't pop (no contrast), the grass and sky are the wrong color (looks like a colored pencil drawing), the HDR effect gives a hazy white "diffused" look to the images, and there's too much vertical distortion from the WA lens (walls should be parallel). They are definitely flat and need more dynamic range.
The compositions are good, but for the darkened areas, you should add/turn on some light (last shot - the shower should be popping with light so that it looks inviting). The kitchen shot has 3 color temperatures - that' makes the shot look unnatural and "dirty".
It's best to avoid using any HDR when doing RE imaging. It's like the truth in advertising stuff, should look natural. Now, if you add some light, that's better. It's the highlight to shadow range that is far apart, making you want to use HDR. But, if you light it right, you'll get much more contrasty, natural images. You can use a ND grad for the sky on outdoor stuff, fill strobes to brighten up shadows (under carports, etc). Indoors, turn on every light AND put bulbs in that are the right color temperature AND matching! I carry a Pelican that has nothing but 50 or so bulbs that are all the same temp.
And, I would have definitely cleaned up the ground - myself or have my client do it first.
Even though it's a low pay job, there's still a standard you should establish. You don't want to explain to anybody and everybody who see's the shots that it was a cheap job - you want them to know what level of work you do (and assume that it was high paying!). I shoot for quite a few brokers and firms - if they were being cheap, I'd walk away gladly. I don't want to be known for being a cheap shooter, but rather a "perfectionist" and let my work negotiate the pay!
