We present a thorough study to evaluate different light field editing interfaces, tools and workflows from a user perspective. This is of special relevance given the multidimensional nature of light fields, which may make common image editing tasks become complex in light field space. We additionally investigate the potential benefits of using depth information when editing, and the limitations imposed by imperfect depth reconstruction using current techniques. We perform two different experiments, collecting both objective and subjective data from a varied number of point-based editing tasks of increasing complexity: In the first experiment, we rely on perfect depth from synthetic light fields, and focus on simple edits. This allows us to gain basic insight on light field editing, and to design a more advanced editing interface. This is then used in the second experiment, employing real light fields with imperfect reconstructed depth, and covering more advanced editing tasks. Our study shows that users can edit light fields with our tested interface and tools, even in the presence of imperfect depth. They follow different workflows depending on the task at hand, mostly relying on a combination of different depth cues. Last, we confirm our findings by asking a set of artists to freely edit both real and synthetic light fields.