IPS screens are more for medical/photo editing. Really nice and accurate colors but the response times are slower. LED screens and still LCDs, just back lit by LED lights.

ips if you care about all the colors and stuff
led regular for poorer and better response time kind of stuff and also being less hot in terms of heat

Sir Master,
Could you link to a few CFL monitors? I'm actually curious. I always thought the EIZO CG221 was the be all to end all for photo editing, etc but at $5200.00 it ain't gonna happen :)

I've recently learned that it doesnt matter if it's LED or just a regular LCD monitor. It's how they've designed it in conjunction with a quality panel. My current monitor is a $99 Acer H203H (20", 1600x900) which is just a regular LCD and yet the contrast, colors, viewing angle, and overall picture quality is amazing. Yesterday I saw the Acer 22" (1920x1080) monitor go on sale for Memorial Day for $99 and decided to pick one up. This one is also LCD but the picture quality is pure crap and when I saw crap I mean this thing couldnt display pure black at all. It's thin around the edges like a LED but still uses CFL backlighting. If possible always try to look at the monitor you're interested in before purchase.
 
TN and LED displays are good and either one can offer excellent picture quality as a I was saying before, depends on the design. IPS panels are even better but you have to shell out the bucks for one that is equally as responsive. Dell Ultrasharps are a good example as they can provide 6ms response time and that's why so many people use them, but like I said the price tag aint too nice.

To me it has to be IPS regardless if its LED or CCFL lit.