When considered the natural environment and the habitus of the translators, it can be seen that in the end of the day they are under the absolute and inevitable dominance of the cultural norms that are prevailing the place and environment they live in as translators. Also they are born in there. The way of attributing meanings, conceiving the "other" and world also the methodology of doing so is shaped within this culture. Even if they are not deeply affected by these prevailing norms of that culture they live in, saying that they are completely far from these affects is not reflecting trues. Consequently, the translator interprets the "source" one under the affect of the "target" and then translates it into the target the way how the prevailing norms of that culture he/she lives in presents the source one. At least the affects of the target can be seen on the translator when he/she translates she/he cannot run away from this reality and truth. So, I think that it is debatable the percentage of the absoluteness of translating the source culture's text into target culture's text. So the traditional way how it taught to the translators to select their type of translating (source/target oriented) before the translating process should be reevaluated and revised thoroughly. The background of these problems should be more visibly argued and debated among lecturers. Hope I could reflected my views here in a true way. And hope it would be beneficial.
If my guess is right, your question addresses Venuti's FOREIGNIZING vs. DOMESTICATING translation methods. My short answer is that it is not absolutely possible to reach this. My long one is that perhaps a mixture of both is advisable. In this case, we can speak of a translation that tends towards either end. In either case, the fluency of the translator in the target language and culture determines the choice of tendency. Notice also that, as ideological decisions, such translations also depend so much on the translator's conscious intentionality to choose between the two.