LCDs have come a long way though CRT diehards still swear by CRTs. There are good LCDs and there are bad CRTs, depends on which one you get. It's definitely not true to say LCDs are not good for photo editing. There are the really good ones like those by Apple, Eizo, Lacie, etc which are used by professionals, those which are no good for editing are those super cheap ones.
Calibrating a monitor is only half the solution. A calibrated monitor only ensures that what you see is correct, but it does not mean that what you print will match what you see. The output device must be properly calibrated and profiled too. Again, it also depends on the quality of the monitor in use in the first place.
Do note that the cheaper LCDs are 18-bit panels (which only gives a total of 262,144 colours) and use interpolation to achieve 16.2 million colours. The good ones are 24-bit panels which are capable of producing 16.77 million colours without interpolation. Some manufacturers like Benq are honest enough to tell you that interpolation is employed, most don't. The way to differentiate is this -- if they say 16.2m colours in the specs, it's 18-bit. If it says 16.77/16.8m colours, it's 24-bit. But sadly, some manufacturers don't even list that.
So if you really want a good LCD, spend more money on it. Otherwise use the same amount to get a good CRT. DVI is supposed to give a better picture compared to analog if your graphic card supports it.
Regards
CK