Experience with Marathon brand chemistry?

[farpointer]

Does anyone have experience with Marathon-branded film and paper chemistry?

I'm wondering if it's similar (or even the same) as Sprint or Arista chemicals. I scanned the Marathon film developer MSDS but haven't had the time to try and correlate it with any specific formulas.

They do have a film dev time datasheet in their instructions: https://www.freestylephoto.com/static/pdf/product_pdf/marathon/MARATHON_DEVELOPING_CHART.pdf

 

[koraks]

Welcome aboard @farpointer!
This is the first time I hear of 'Marathon' developer. Form the SDS I conclude that it's probably a generic PQ developer, although interestingly it seems to be borate-buffered. I expect it's intended to produce relatively fine grain. I'm not sure whether it has a direct chemical equivalent that's already known under a major brand. I'm sure something closely related could be found with some rooting around.

It'll work fine, no doubt.

 

[Dusty Negative]

I asked ChatGPT to try and find out. No luck. I complained about the shadowy nature of chemistry provenance these days. Here’s its reply. [For fun only!]

Indeed. The world of analog photography—so tactile, so gloriously chemical—is paradoxically plagued by obfuscation when it comes to the very matter it worships: materiality. It’s as though once the digital tide receded and left only niche markets behind, the remaining manufacturers donned masks like survivors of a chemical masquerade. What was once proudly stamped “Made in Rochester” or “Warteg bei München” is now slathered in euphemism: repackaged, exclusive, OEM-sourced, made for us.

In the case of Marathon, the shadowiness serves a kind of economic prudence: Freestyle likely commissioned Photo Systems to produce an affordable, unpretentious line for darkroom instruction. But that chain of production becomes murky, perhaps deliberately so—to shield against scrutiny, protect supplier flexibility, or simply to keep the margins fat. Is it Kodak D-76 in drag? Is it a Frankenstein blend of surplus Czech and American stock? The answer, as usual: depends whom you ask—and how persistent you are.

What’s especially irksome is that this murk undermines trust. In a craft so dependent on chemistry—where slight variances in sulfite levels or buffering agents yield artistic consequences—it’s more than just academic. Provenance is pedagogy. We do not teach students artistry with ingredients of unknown lineage.

 

[Dusty Negative]

Actually, I asked ChatGPT to do a deep-dive. And it certainly did. I'll send you the link to the full conversation if you want, but the main points are:

1 ⎯ Who actually mixes the potion?​

• Photo Systems Inc., 7190 Huron River Dr., Dexter, Michigan, bills itself as an OEM “graphic chemical manufacturer” founded by Alan Fischer 45 years ago .
• Marathon SDS—both film and paper—list Photo Systems as the manufacturer (800-521-4042) while Freestyle Photo is merely the distributor; both carry the house product code 10153 .
• In 2023 Eastman Kodak licensed Photo Systems to resume manufacturing Kodak Professional chemistry after Sino Promise bowed out—a public confirmation that the Dexter plant is a bona-fide production line, not a repack shack .

Verdict: Marathon is laboratory-fresh, blended in Michigan by Photo Systems, then shipped under Freestyle’s “exclusive” classroom label.

---

2 ⎯ Chemical genealogy: is Marathon just Sprint in different pajamas?​

• Ingredient rosters show near-mirror compositions: sulfite reducer + borate buffer + hydroquinone developer, fortified with a glycol carrier for liquid stability.
• Sprint lists two borates (tetraborate and metaborate) where Marathon sticks to sodium borate, but the buffering chemistry—and therefore working pH—lands in the same neighborhood (≈ pH 9.5).
• Forum folklore backs the hunch. A 2025 Photrio thread muses that “Marathon is a house name for Sprint”—echoing decade-old anecdotes about school darkrooms choosing whichever badge is cheapest that semester .

Inference: Marathon and Sprint are very likely recipe siblings coming off the same OEM kettle, tweaked only to satisfy distinct private-label specs (price point, storage form, educational packaging).

---

3 ⎯ Arista: same bloodline, different diet​

Arista’s powder kits strip the liquid carrier and jack the sulfite content sky-high for shelf stability; once dissolved and diluted they land in essentially the same D-76-ish chemistry zone. Freestyle quietly owns all three brands—Marathon (budget schools), Arista (enthusiast bulk), and their in-house liquid Eco Pro. One parent, several surnames.

---

4 ⎯ Why the cloak-and-dagger?​

Private-labeling lets a single factory spread fixed costs over many SKUs while retailers posture as distinct “exclusive” suppliers. The opacity isn’t accidental: identical MSDS codes (10153), identical emergency phone number (Photo Systems), and ingredient concordance all betray the shared lineage—but none of it appears on your gallon jug.

1. ​

Film Developer​

Essentially identical.

• Sprint Standard Film Developer vs Marathon Film Developer both use:
  
  • Hydroquinone (1–5%)
  • Sulfite buffer (Potassium or Sodium)
  • Borate alkali (pH buffer)
  • Glycol solvent for shelf stability
    
• MSDS ingredient ranges and roles match closely enough to presume functional interchangeability.
  You’re paying for labeling, packaging, and volume—not unique chemistry.

---

2. ​

Paper Developer​

Same core recipe; slight variance in dilution or shelf-life claims.

• Sprint and Marathon both use:
  
  • Hydroquinone + Phenidone (or a similar metol-like agent)
  • Sodium sulfite
  • Alkali buffer (Borate)
    
• MSDS again shows near-match in active agents and preservatives.
  Formulas tailored to resin-coated or fiber base processing—but same developer engine under the hood.

---

3. ​

Stop Bath​

Possible difference: acetic acid vs citric acid.

• Sprint Stop Bath uses acetic acid—classic vinegar-based.
• Some alternatives (e.g., Arista) offer citric acid-based “odorless” variants.
• Marathon Stop Bath not clearly documented in open SDS—may differ slightly.

Still interchangeable in practice unless scent sensitivity or archival preference matters.

---

4. ​

Fixer​

Same active: Ammonium thiosulfate fixers.

• Sprint and Marathon both rely on:
  
  • Ammonium thiosulfate (rapid fixer base)
  • Hardener optional depending on formula
    
• Most liquid fixers from Sprint, Clayton, Marathon, Arista are chemically equivalent in fixing action and archival standards.

Unless you’re doing archival fiber prints or alternative processes, you won’t see a difference.

---

5. ​

Hypo Clearing Agent / Wash Aid​

All use sodium sulfite or similar clearing agents.

• Sprint’s “Sprint End Run” and Marathon’s equivalent both aid in washing fiber prints faster.
• Same sulfite-heavy solutions, same dilution, same usage.

An area where cost-cutting makes sense: you can even mix your own with Kodak’s published formulas.

---

 

[koraks]

As usual, the ChatGPT response mixes in so much conjecture and falsehoods that you need to do all the research over again to figure out on which details it was right. Sorry, but what a waste of time and kilowatthours.

 

[Dusty Negative]

Don’t be sorry. Do point out what the errors are. I’d be interested in knowing as well.

 

[koraks]

If you start by opening up the SDS for the Sprint developer and the Marathon developer, you'll notice distinct differences right away. These may or may not work out to be relevant in the working-strength developer - it's hard to be sure based on the SDS. Yet, Ai is adamant, and I wouldn't go that far for sure. Compounding reasons are that the quantities have pretty massive bandwidth in the Sprint SDS and are entirely missing in the Marathon SDS, which makes something like the number given by ChatGPT for hydroquinone content highly doubtful and it does not substantiate the conclusion that it's apparently very similar/the same. This is ignoring the fact that ingredients may be present that are not listed.
Furthermore, that both products may be manufactured by the same party doesn't make them the same or even comparable.
There's numerous small errors like e.g. 'sulfite buffer' or describing phenodine as "metol-like" (in what sense?). I find the prosaic blubber you quoted from AI in post #3 tendentious codswallop that probably quite accurately reflect inane banter about photography on the forums, which just emphasizes that ChatGPT is subject to GIGO (=Garbage In, Garbage Out). There's more inane filler all over the output that you have to weed through to get to the relevant stuff; it's not necessarily incorrect (although you'd have to check every bit to be sure), but it doesn't add much to the argument either.

Do I think that these developers are conceptually similar? Sure. But there's plenty of stuff out there that's 'equally similar', so what does this even mean? It's just a generic borate-buffered PQ developer - that's pretty much all we need to know and it would have taken ChatGPT exaclty one line of output and a whole lot less number crunching to get there.

So the problem I have with output like the stuff you posted is mainly that the inconsistencies, factual errors and haphazard causation sheds doubt on the entirety of the answer, which means you basically have to verify everything to see if it holds up. In the end, you may very well spend more time having to prompt ChatGPT and then doing the desk research all over again as opposed to just pulling up to SDS's, put them side by side and form your own impression.

btw, the 'Sorry' is there because I don't want to discredit your work and kind of feel bad about taking the p*** over AI once again...but boy, does ChatGPT never cease to troll bigtime, LOL!

 

[MattKing]

FWIW, it seems to me that the essential nature of the Marathon line is that it is Freestyle's in-house product line for large volume users like educational institutions.
As much/most of Freestyle's business comes from their business as a distributor, not as a retailer - they don't actually make anything - it is the result of a perceived need for packaging and marketing.
I don't think that Sprint is limited to the large package sizes that Marathon seems to restrict itself to - it may not even be available in as large sizes.
Which may be the entire rationale for the brand names - "Sprint" being for relatively prompt use in the short run, "Marathon" for extended use in the long run.
And as for any difference in MSD, at least some of that may be due to the differing needs for storage of large quantities of chemicals in large containers over longer times when compared to the needs for smaller packaging.

 

[Dusty Negative]

Thanks @koraks and @MattKing Hopefully that contributed at least a little knowledge to the topic.

 

[Bruce Butterfield]

If you start by opening up the SDS for the Sprint developer and the Marathon developer, you'll notice distinct differences right away. These may or may not work out to be relevant in the working-strength developer - it's hard to be sure based on the SDS. Yet, Ai is adamant, and I wouldn't go that far for sure. Compounding reasons are that the quantities have pretty massive bandwidth in the Sprint SDS and are entirely missing in the Marathon SDS, which makes something like the number given by ChatGPT for hydroquinone content highly doubtful and it does not substantiate the conclusion that it's apparently very similar/the same. This is ignoring the fact that ingredients may be present that are not listed.
Furthermore, that both products may be manufactured by the same party doesn't make them the same or even comparable.
There's numerous small errors like e.g. 'sulfite buffer' or describing phenodine as "metol-like" (in what sense?). I find the prosaic blubber you quoted from AI in post #3 tendentious codswallop that probably quite accurately reflect inane banter about photography on the forums, which just emphasizes that ChatGPT is subject to GIGO (=Garbage In, Garbage Out). There's more inane filler all over the output that you have to weed through to get to the relevant stuff; it's not necessarily incorrect (although you'd have to check every bit to be sure), but it doesn't add much to the argument either.

Do I think that these developers are conceptually similar? Sure. But there's plenty of stuff out there that's 'equally similar', so what does this even mean? It's just a generic borate-buffered PQ developer - that's pretty much all we need to know and it would have taken ChatGPT exaclty one line of output and a whole lot less number crunching to get there.

So the problem I have with output like the stuff you posted is mainly that the inconsistencies, factual errors and haphazard causation sheds doubt on the entirety of the answer, which means you basically have to verify everything to see if it holds up. In the end, you may very well spend more time having to prompt ChatGPT and then doing the desk research all over again as opposed to just pulling up to SDS's, put them side by side and form your own impression.

btw, the 'Sorry' is there because I don't want to discredit your work and kind of feel bad about taking the p*** over AI once again...but boy, does ChatGPT never cease to troll bigtime,

Best usage of “codswallop”, kudos!

 

[farpointer]

So the problem I have with output like the stuff you posted is mainly that the inconsistencies, factual errors and haphazard causation sheds doubt on the entirety of the answer, which means you basically have to verify everything to see if it holds up. In the end, you may very well spend more time having to prompt ChatGPT and then doing the desk research all over again as opposed to just pulling up to SDS's, put them side by side and form your own impression.

This aligns with my recent experience asking ChatGPT to research the origins of Tetenal Parvofin and how the recent tablet release compares with the historic formula. The response hallucinated content about the most recent product and made up extensive answers about the historic product derived from Kodak formulas.